Analyzing the ‘Bridge Encyclopedia’ through McLuhan’s Tetrad and Latour’s Actor Network Theory
I can’t be the only person who was obsessed with Microsoft Encarta’s Mindmaze game. I had always yearned for a set of Encyclopedias… but when that free disc comes with your computer, I shortly stopped asking for them.
it’s media all the way down
Media ecology is the study of how media and technology function as environments that shape human perception, communication, and understanding. It looks not just at content, but at the structures and systems we build and are surrounded by, from language to smartphones, and how they shape what we can think, say, and do. Like an ecosystem, these media interact with one another and with us, constantly reshaping our cultural and intellectual “habitat.” Media ecology asks the right questions because it recognizes that anything that impacts our communication or interaction provides limits and biases to what is possible. Without recognizing the impact of these impositions we risk mistaking the shape of our media environment for the shape of reality itself.
This definition aligns with Strate’s (2000, as cited in Strate and Lum, 2020) argument that media ecology is a perspective; “a way of seeing”—that treats media as environments rather than just channels. Neil Postman (as cited in Lum, 2000) similarly calls media ecology “the study of the cultural consequences of media change that affects our social organization, cognitive habits, and political ideas” (p. 4). In other words, it is not enough to examine what media say; we must examine what they make possible and what they make difficult to imagine.
Strate and Lum (2000) situate media ecology within a tradition that is ecological, interdisciplinary, and activist, drawing on Patrick Geddes’ view that intellectuals must act as shapers of environments, not just observers (p. 60). This implies that media ecology cannot belong neatly to one discipline. It is necessarily intersectional, combining insights from communication studies, history, sociology, semiotics, and philosophy. Thinking ecologically means remembering that, as Miller (1989) puts it, “no living organism can be understood except in terms of the total environment in which it functioned” (as cited in Strate & Lum, 2000, p. 68).
Mumford’s historical schema illustrates how environments structure society over time. His three phases—eotechnic, paleotechnic, and neotechnic—mark shifts from renewable energy to industrial extraction to machine-human symbiosis, with each stage reorganizing labor, power, and social classes (Strate & Lum, 2000, pp. 63–65). These phases demonstrate that technological environments are not neutral: they define the “rules of the game” for entire cultures.
Lum (2000) further explains that media have both physical and symbolic dimensions, each with distinct biases. These biases can be temporal, spatial, sensory, political, social, metaphysical, or epistemological (p. 2). To do media ecology is to surface these biases and ask what forms of knowledge, attention, and relationship they enable—and which they foreclose. This is why media ecology “asks the right questions.” It does not merely catalog media; it interrogates how each medium privileges some possibilities and silences others.
Model of Educational Media Ecology
References
Lum, C. M. K. (2000). Introduction: The intellectual roots of media ecology. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870009367375
Strate, L., & Lum, C. M. K. (2000). Lewis Mumford and the ecology of technics. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870009367379
But what about the truth?
Our discussions of knowledge and constructivism often focus on the elusive idea of truth. And it’s not surprising, because so much of our lives depend on the truths that others have decided for us, and the truths we have made for ourselves. For example, when people experience conflict, we ask them what actually happened, and they are often judged and given consequences based on the information they provide, despite the fact that the limitations of human cognition mean that we will almost inevitably be missing, misconstruing, or misrepresenting information. The emphasis on truth also isn’t surprising, because some of our earliest philosophical musings about what constitutes knowledge defined it as “justified true belief” (Pritchard, 2014, p. 22).
Constructivism is a framework for explaining how people learn. Cobb points out two main trends in constructivist research: one that students are actively constructing an understanding of the worlds of their personal experience; the second that focuses on the “social and cultural”-ness of everything that we do (2005, p. 87). Although these views can seem conflicting, neither directly addresses the concept of truth.
Over the millennia that humans have been questing after it, we have developed some significant methods for determining theoretical truths thanks to the use of the scientific method and other well established and rigorous patterns of logic and observation. To borrow from Dr. Taber, we can build a good picture from clues, and we can test these expectations against future experience and make revisions. And from this, we can learn a lot about the world (2020).
Perhaps part of the problem is that both knowledge and belief have instrumental value, with knowledge typically being seen as having greater value (Pritchard, 2014, pp. 12-13). This value is not just inherent; it is socially constructed and reinforced. When we hold a particular belief and find ourselves within a community that shares that belief, we derive a sense of belonging, validation, and even identity from it. Even if a belief is later found to be inaccurate, the process of altering that belief can be complex and emotionally taxing, not merely because of cognitive inertia but also due to the social ramifications it may entail. Taber (2020) hinted at this when he spoke of how we often interpret our experiences to fit our inherent cognitive biases. This is where constructivism’s emphasis on the social dimension of learning becomes crucial.
Constructivism posits that learning isn’t merely an act of individual reflection and experience; it also involves a dynamic interplay with one’s physical and social environment. In essence, our thoughts, and thereby our learning and knowledge, are influenced by our culture. However, they also challenge it, gradually altering its boundaries (Fosnot & Perry, 2005, p. 71). Some theories draw parallels between evolutionary processes and individual learning, suggesting that personal learning can be understood as a result of activity and self-organization. This, in turn, leads to the development of cognitive structures (Fosnot & Perry, 2005, p. 79). As learners engage with their community, they may initially form beliefs based on shared experiences or the prevailing views of that community. The task for educators, then, isn’t just about correcting misinformation but facilitating environments where learners can collaboratively refine, challenge, and cross-check these beliefs. Through rigorous reflection, social interactions, and further experiences, these beliefs can then be transformed into more robust knowledge. Recognizing the social weight of beliefs and their potential to evolve underscores the importance of fostering learning environments where beliefs can be openly tested, questioned, and refined into truths that are more universally applicable.
I think one of the things that I will take from this course is the understanding that I must continue to question things. What do I consider acceptable forms of knowledge; what are acceptable ways to show and share it? The ideas that I have privileged may be the products of social and cultural beliefs rather than rationally supported understanding. Barbara Stewart Edwards spoke to this in her week 7 post : “Within diverse classrooms rich with ‘funds of knowledge,’ constructivist strategies that utilize diverse knowledge well, will not only serve to engage all its learners, but cultural understandings and sensitivity will also develop. Empathy, a trait said to be lacking in many of our 21st century learners, will be awakened.”
Please enjoy these memes that I created based on constructivist principles and in synthesis of course readings.
References
Cobb, P. (2005). Where is the mind? A coordination of sociocultural and cognitive constructivist approaches. In Constructivism : Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. Teachers College Press.
Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In Constructivism : Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. Teachers College Press.
Pritchard, D. (2018). What is this thing called knowledge? Routledge.
Taber, K. (2020). Constructivism – the good; the bad; and the abhorrent? In edcp.educ.ubc.ca. https://edcp.educ.ubc.ca/constructivism-the-good-the-bad-and-the-abhorrent/
