“Let us all bask in television’s warm glowing warming glow”: How technology helps to stoke the fire of a social revolution

The advent of the TV in 1927 introduced to the world to a brand new information hub. It brought together picture and sound in a new and more accessible way. However, as is nearly always true with brand new technology, not everyone was able to own one at first. It wasn’t until World War Two ended in 1945 that TVs started to become more and more commonplace.

By the 50s and 60s, most children were growing up with a TV in their home. This mass introduction of TVs into the average person’s home was tied in with multiple historical connections: first, that the economy was soaring in the post-war economic boom following World War Two, allowing average families to afford a TV; second, that people were interested in embracing new technology and ways of receiving information. The more people that had TVs, the more that wanted them- no one wanted to feel left out of the loop. The third and most notable implication was that by enacting McLuahn’s idea of the global village, the TV inspired a great deal of the social upheaval and subsequent protests of the late 60s and early 70s that brought forth much social change, namely for women, minorities, and members of the LGBT community.

At first glance, the TV might be overlooked as the key to the social change at that time. It wasn’t as if there were many programs being shown that challenged the status quo. While there were shows like That Girl (1966),

which addressed feminist issues in an upfront manner, most shows on the air at the time showed people in traditional roles for the time periods, living out their master narratives.

However, as Meyrowitz explores in his book No Sense of Place, the real ways in which TV sparked a social revolution went deeper than just the programs. One way was through exposure. Although by and large TV programs of the time didn’t include much particularly shocking content, they exposed disenfranchised groups of society to things that they had been shut out of before. For example, Meyrowitz says that “television exposed women to many “male topics” that they might not have chosen to read about in print” (pp. 211). TV, Meyrowitz says, is “presentational” in format and makes information easy to digest, and more importantly accessible. People often find it easier to find time to watch a program that to read a book. In this way, TV opened windows to whole new worlds for people who had not been exposed to them before. Once an interest was sparked in these topics, it was hard to turn off. Once people got a taste they wanted more, and eventually they were willing to fight for it.

Another way in which TV sparked the social revolution was through the idea of the aforementioned global village. By sharing the same information through the same means to many people in different homes, TV inspired a new kind of tribe, one not defined by physical closeness but by shared experiences and emotions created through the information they were all receiving. This created a sort of group identity, especially for the children growing up with TVs, many who had never known a home without one. They were all receiving a large chunk of their information either directly from their TV, or from their parents as a middleman between the TV and the child. This created a bond for this generation, one unlike any before them had had. It is also important to note and remember that channels were limited at this time, and most TV sets only had access to 12 channels until the mid 70s when the first cable networks began to pop up. This meant that most families were watching the same programs, and as a result were receiving the exact same information. This strengthened the connection between the children and young adults of this era.

This change is important in terms of the social revolution because when people feel more connected with one another and receive the same information, they are more obliged to have the same beliefs and ideals. It is impossible for a change as large as that of the 60s and 70s to happen unless the people behind it are unified. Additionally once people began to speak out and protest and their words are in turn broadcast on news networks, more people will have the chance to see and possibly relate, understand, and participate.

These same ideals still ring true today with the internet. The TV has largely passed its heyday of being the main information hub that connects people, and the internet has replaced it, but on a much larger scale. Just like the first generation to grow up with TV spearheaded social change for women, minorities, and the LGBT community, the first generation with internet is making change for societal groups that are considered the “other”. Specifically, today’s younger generations are focused on more specific issues in these realms such as transgenderism, gender identity, sexual assault, the masculinity master narrative for men, among others. The reason that the fight for social justice has expanded and delved into niches of main larger issues so significantly is due to the vastness of the internet in terms of information. Anyone can put anything they want on a website, and in turn one can find information on almost anything they’re looking for.

This gives people an even larger opportunity to relate, understand, and participate with issues that register with them. The internet is also extremely easy to access, even more so than TV was in the past. Almost everyone has an internet accessible device, and for those who don’t libraries allow free access to their computers and wireless networks. The easy access to the wide berth of information online has also changed the way children who are growing up process through society, making it easier for them to find out about and therefore champion for certain social issues. It used to be that children received the bulk of their information through their parents and teachers, and for the most part didn’t learn about things like politics and social issues, and even personal things like sex, until their elders wanted them to. Nowadays, many children have tablets or at least access to family devices, and have so much of the information contained on the internet at their finger tips. This changes the power dynamic between children and adults, as this is at least one way in which children are no longer relying on their parents and teachers in the way that they used to. They are getting the information that they need to form their own opinions and begin to make their own way through the world earlier than ever.

The switch from TV to the internet shows that the same trends are continuing in terms of social justice and making change happen, but as time and technology progressed it continued to happen on a larger and larger scale, largely in part to the increase of information available. It is hard to imagine new technology that makes information even more available to the general public than it already is with the internet, but if trends continue that way society might be in store for a full scale social revolution against traditional ideals. It is generally the younger generation that spearheads social change, and as every new generation comes of age they seem to bring with them their own ideals for social change that they view as important. It is interesting to ponder what the next generation will view as important to them; if what we view as vital to focus on today still resonates years from now; how many things we are fighting for today will be see as ‘resolved’, down the line, or if any of them ever will.