DROMOLOGY: MEDIA, SPEED AND A NEGATIVE HORIZON
German version available
The medium is one of those terms for which there is no clear definition. Media theory, media philosophy and media studies, they all, and also individual writers and philosophers, have tried to define the terminology without ever unifying it.
Paul Virilio, the French philosopher and cultural critic, architect and urban planner, had also developed a definition that is fundamental to know in order to understand his actual major field of research — dromology, which he coined. With dromology, Virilio, who was born in 1932 and died in 2018, looked at social development from the point of view of speed, painting a picture of the future that was anything but bright. What can we learn from his sometimes dystopian view of things in order to question technological developments constructively but critically and to use them in a mindful and sensible manner?
MEDIUM AND SPEED
In his 1978 essay “Fahren, fahren, fahren,” (“Ride, ride, ride” ), Virilio explains his understanding of medium most impressively, pointing to the relevance of speed.
Thus, he defines the car in its parked state merely as a covered sofa that only acquires its special character as a means of transportation through movement. It becomes a medium that gets itself, people and objects from A to B. In doing so, he states that reality changes for the person riding, as perceptual possibilities are affected by the speed of the vehicle. A purely geographical, static perception is transformed into a temporal, kinetic perception. Virilio breaks this insight down to an even more fundamental level: the individual itself is a medium of movement, a “metabolic vehicle” that moves and even identifies with its own speed — that of its movements, but also that of its own biography. In another essay entitled “Speed and Politics”, Virilio also refers to the thesis that it is not material wealth but speed that significantly influences all political life and desire. Not which good and which knowledge one possesses gives power to people, but rather the speed with which they can transmit it and thus make use of it.
To mention an example where the importance of the medium’s speed comes to the fore in the context of power: think of the stock market trading in recent years, where fractions of seconds decide upon the success or failure of stock trading thanks to the power of computers and the speed in data and command transmission. Simultaneity, real-time transmission, are the keywords.
SIMULTANEITY, UBIQUITY, FRENETIC STANDSTILL
In fact, the 20th century has produced technological innovations that enable temporal simultaneity at spatial distance. The radio, live broadcasts on television, Internet and its diverse potential are just a few examples. Paul Virilio mused on the impact of the simultaneity of electronic communication transmission in his 1990 essay “Frenetic Standstill” a time when the World Wide Web was just becoming available for commercial use. The essay and excerpts from other writings of his anticipate in many aspects what the Internet has become over the last three decades: an acceleration of electronic communication shortening spatial distances and hurdles. Space becomes boundless and condensed at the same time. We can be here and virtually — via zoom, VR glasses or livestream — anywhere else at the same time, achieving ubiquity. And the amount of information is also condensed — we google, use Wikipedia and content is king anyway — which in turn leads to over-information.
Up to this point, Virilio’s prophecy should be in line with many of our own experiences. But then? Virilio continues to reflect: virtual realities mediated by electronic communication are increasingly superseding real space, up to the point that a standstill and an almost comatose state set in, heralding the end of civilization. Virilio’s vision of the future becomes a dystopia.
THE EGOCENTRIC WORLD VIEW
Let’s take a step back in the analysis of Virilio’s research to understand his dystopian conclusions. Due to the acceleration of communication by means of electronic transmission, real space is losing importance. The geocentric worldview — that is, real, geographic space as a point of reference — is becoming obsolete and is replaced by the egocentric worldview. What counts is the perception of the individual, not the space in which the individual is located. This also increasingly relativizes the perception of time. This thesis can also be understood on the basis of our own experience. While people traditionally lived and acted within the spatial bubble of their neighborhood, the geographic radius of action has increased with the means of transportation. Now we are experiencing a further exaggeration of the concept of the bubble: we ourselves — and accordingly algorithms — decide what we are shown by search engines and in social media. Our perception is becoming more and more personalized based on our own standards. And the geographical location of our whereabouts becomes less relevant: there are social media for socializing even at a distance, and if our favorite boutique is on the other side of the planet, online shopping can help you out.
Virilio also predicted these developments as early as his 1990 essay, concluding that humanity is heading toward dromo-politics, in which social de-regulation will set in and the concept of the nation will become outdated. For Virilio, this leads to blindness regarding the essential and to destruction of the human way of life.
THE ABOLITION OF PEOPLE
But what leads Virilio to such a dystopian assessment?
In his 1993 essay “Revolutions of Speed” the French author defines three phases of the speed revolution. First, as indicated above, there is the revolution in transportation in the 19th century. It is followed, also described, by the revolution of transmission media in the speed of light, which enables simultaneity at spatial distance. Virilio considers transplantation technology to be the third revolution. His thesis: since the speed of the media cannot be accelerated any further, the only thing that can be influenced is human perception. He assumes this will be achieved through transplantation techniques. The information is fed directly into the human being by “micromachines” and degrades the human being itself to a mere shell. His logical conclusion to counteract this end: a voluntary technological regression. And in Virilio’s view, in order to motivate and achieve this, every technological innovation also requires the corresponding accident scenario as a memorial. He called it keeping an eye on the “negative horizon” and suggested the establishment of an accident museum.
NO ACCIDENT MUSEUM, LOTS OF DISCOURSE AND A NOTE ON OUR OWN BEHALF
If one deals with Virilio and his dystopian visions of the future, one may and must certainly keep in mind that he is less a methodical, analytical scientist than an abstract thinker. He himself therefore classified his work as science fiction, as theoretical fiction. Accordingly, his work still encounters criticism among scientists today. Nevertheless, some of his theses on the first two revolutions are likely to make some of us reconsider, even without an accident museum. The line then becomes narrower when it comes to his thoughts on transplantation techniques, which could possibly appeal to conspiracy theorists. Engaging with Virilio and, more generally, with philosophers, media and other scientists is, however, a necessary part of a culture of communication that seeks dialogue, discourse and discussion and conducts and cultivates them mindfully. “Negative horizons” can become a point of friction in the process just as positive input becomes a thought-provoking impulse. In any case, a mindful approach to all points of view offers the opportunity to deal reflectively and responsibly with technological innovations, but also with all other challenges of our time.
Author: Sabine Schweigert, Sabine Schweigert
