Week 2 Reflection & Discussion
Question 2:
How can we analyze the ways that members of a culture use technology as a locus for evolving or conflicting cultural practices and social change?
The use of Roman concrete as a method of understanding the embedded social structures of the first century BCE is itself a metaphor for interpreting frameworks of hierarchy, wealth and the cultural assertion of the elite. The construction of villas as symbols of cultural assertion, of Roman-ness above all others, is facilitated by the use of concrete, and provides an enduring visual symbol of the methods of differentiation between those who would build, and those who would inhabit. It is an expression of identity, but also of power. And as Zarmakoupi argues, it is a reflection of agency between those who have it in Roman society, and those who don’t (Zarmakoupi, 2023).
The use of concrete was also a means by which Roman elites could assert their own agency over a previous, conquered Hellenistic culture. Intellectually appropriating elements of Greek culture, specifically art, literature and architecture, in order to strengthen their own sense of identity. It is a method of cultural innovation which builds upon previous social invention in order to facilitate and strengthen the scale of something new - the Roman Republic. In doing this, the speed at which concrete could accelerate construction also empowered the rapid building of the symbols of the elite. Faster than the Hellenistic quarried stone and carved marble, the Romans also blended techniques from the East to build swiftly, not just in the construction of buildings, but building of Roman-ness itself. It shaped not just the landscape, but also social hierarchy. It gave elites concrete symbols of wealth and power over those who would otherwise lack social agency, and reinforced the notion that while they were all Romans, some were more Roman than others.
Question 3: Connection ideas from this week’s readings, lectures, and/or media to topics of your own interest
I am fascinated by the notion of how one technology gives rise to another, and how we wrap such ideas around our understanding of progress. Johnson’s documentary provides such a through-line between the invention of glass through the innovations of the lens, eyeglasses (and their subsequent scaled distribution of knowledge through reading), telescopes, microscopes, movie cameras, televisions and ultimately fibre optics. That through glass, there would be no modern communications revolution. We understand in retrospect what begets what, but we can rarely understand it while we are still living through it. I am thinking a lot about how we cannot comprehend much of what is currently happening with artificial intelligence. We fear it, but cannot avoid it. We see it as invention but not innovation. That artificial intelligence stands on the shoulders of the digital progression of the past decades, and will shape the decades to come.
I’m also thinking a lot about when a technology is additive and when it is subtractive. Those moments where one technology either replaces another, or exists alongside it. We might think of the use of marble and stone quarries versus concrete in the Roman era, where one didn’t replace the other, even though there were clear cultural benefits afforded to those who could make such a choice. In the modern era, we might think of audio recordings. The use of wax records through vinyl, through magnetic tape, through compact discs to digital file sharing. We may go through periods where we declare one technology to have overwritten another, but in this case, vinyl is more alive than ever (https://www.statista.com/statistics/188822/lp-album-sales-in-the-united-states-since-2009/), with over 40 million LPs sold in 2021. In looking for a metaphor to articulate this, I am thinking of the stock market ticker, where individual stocks all co-exist, but rise and fall throughout the day. So the question is, does anything ever really go away?
Discussion: The Fast, Far Writer
Social comparison between the invention of Roman concrete and the birth of the Victorian telegraph coalesce around ideas of distribution. If Roman concrete served as a hardening function of identity, of elite Roman-ness itself and supported distinctions of wealth, hierarchy and power of those who would seek to suppress the agency of others, the Victorian telegraph sought to democratize communication and connect cultures through networks across space. If one technology was insular and exclusive, the other was liberal, open and inclusive, at least in spirit. The Victorian telegraph sought to connect rather than divide. To transcend time and space rather than further reinforce existing systems of privilege. To collapse the gaps between networks, events and their distribution. Eyeglasses serve a similar purpose in their democratization of reading in parallel with the invention of the printing press and beginnings of broader knowledge distribution. If eyeglasses and the telegraph helped more understand the world around them, concrete served to only reinforce the world as it was.
So the comparison becomes one of asking who benefits from such invention. The Roman Republic’s concrete benefits the wealthy elite at the expense of the many, where even despite its military implications, the French Republic’s telegraph seeks to benefit many in its harnessing of electricity right from the start. Much of the growth the telegraph concerns the development of more effective means of signaling, and championing by the military, where the growth of concrete turns inwards within the Republic as a politicized means of developing separation. If the telegraph unites, Roman concrete divides.
What do you think?
