
Introduction
Everyday, when I wake up, the world is a little blurred. Beside my head, on my windowsill, are the frames of plastic that fix that.
I have had glasses since I was nine years old and since then they have been the windows through which I have quite literally watched my entire life. Without my glasses, I would not have the same memories that I do today, namely because lots of the details would be missing. Nothing is more subjective than a person’s perspective, and in that, their perception of the world. By watching the world through my glasses, my perception has been permanently altered by them. It would otherwise be lacking image and depth as I literally would not be able to see the bigger picture. Unless I decide to wear contacts, or get surgery to fix my eyesight, my entire world will always be mediated through these pieces of plastic and because of that, they are the root from which all of my memories, perceptions, and opinions grow.
By clarifying the world around men, mechanically fixing the way that my eyes focus the light in the world they watch, my glasses have mediated my experience and memory since I got them.
Affordances
The main affordance of my glasses is pretty clear: they help me see. Without them, and assuming there was no alternative to fixing my vision, my everyday life would be significantly impaired. I would not be able to see properly beyond a foot from my nose, which would make things including–but not limited to–reading signs and whiteboards, driving, and recognizing faces pretty difficult. Though they are crucial to my easy access to the world around me, the function of my glasses reaches beyond what they do to the light as it enters my eye.
Each pair of glasses that I have means something different to me. I have a purple and green glow-in-the-dark pair from when I was a kid, pairs that were too small, pairs that gave me a headache and, most importantly, pairs that I love and feel myself in. In addition to helping me see, my glasses are a mode of self-expression. Just because they are functionally necessary to my everyday life, does not mean I can not use them to a further effect and have fun with them. I also deliberately avoid wearing contacts. Frankly, I hate them. Though I do not mind sticking a piece of plastic in my eye, they are far too finicky for my taste, and when I do wear them, they always really dry out my eyes. Additionally, because I have had my glasses for so long, I have gotten used to them, and feel more myself when I wear them than when I go without.
I rarely change my everyday glasses. All of these frames are distinctly associated to different periods of my life, and by that effect, are irrevocably linked to the memories I have within those periods. By mediating my world so thoroughly, my glasses can be studied within the context of many of the critical terms we discussed in class, most notably, Body and Senses.
Body
Growing up with glasses, they have become incorporated into my own sense of identity. This is interesting to consider in the context of McLuhan’s theory of media as “extensions of man” and it should be understood as “continuous with the human nervous system”(Wegenstein 29). My glasses are an extension of my eyes by necessity, altering the way my eyes receive light, and focusing the world around me. By affecting my vision so concretely, there is very little distinction between the “inside and outside” of the media and myself, greatly conflating my perspective with the perspective of the glasses. Theoretically, the glasses still mediate when they are not on my face, they still function off my face, there just is not anyone to perceive the perspective they create.
McLuhan defines a dual function of media, one that is both an extension and amputation of the body (Wegenstein 29). They are an extension of my eyes and mediate my world through their lenses, yet they are also physically separate from my face, focusing the light in the world whether or not they are on my face.
Senses
Obviously, my glasses pretty heavily impact my own sense of sight, however, what is more significant is how reliant I am on my glasses.
The concept of Plato’s cave is interesting to consider in relation to my reliance on my glasses. The basis for Plato’s cave is the division between “knowing and mere existence” in that the prisoners–bound to simply watching the world–only exist, while philosophers–who experience the full dimensions of the world and understand its mediation of reality–are in the know (Jones 89). This distinction between watching and knowing is applicable to my perception of the world with and without my glasses. Without them, my ability to see and move through the physical world is inherently altered, but I am still able to see. However, the lack of depth and detail that impedes my ability to see the bigger picture could be compared to the simple existence of the prisoners in the cave who simply watch without knowing.
By correcting my vision, my glasses afford me an effective sense of sight, allowing me the context and depth of details, and affording me the knowledge associated. The construct of the cave completely dictates the prisoners’ experiences of reality, forming “a system of representation and deception with which the blindered sense of sight colludes”(Jones 89). Similarly, my glasses completely mediate my perception of the world. Though the reliance between me and my glasses is far less absolute than that of the prisoners and the cave featured in Plato’s cave analogy, and most of the things I do in my everyday life are possible without sight, there is a similar reliance on media to fully experience the world and the full extent of knowledge it offers.
Exploring these parallels further, the concept of true vision–“turning away from spectacle… closing one’s eyes to the visible world—or its mediated image—to question what one sees”–is also interesting to consider. Associated with this notion, and Plato’s analogy, are two tropes of blindness:“the ignorant blindness of the prisoners and the volitional blindness of the philosopher”(Jones 89). These ideas of different blindness parallel the function of glasses. I can consciously take off my glasses, turning away from the spectacle and engaging in a form of volitional blindness, thus un-mediating the world and returning it to the state that my own eyes and brain have decided is right for me (as inconvenient as that may be). But it also renders me ignorant to the details of my physical surroundings.
Conclusion
It is intriguing to study my glasses as they have become such a routine and unremarkable part of my life. By looking at them through the lens of the theories discussed in these chapters, I found a new appreciation for my frames. By looking at the functional and everyday objects in our lives in these ways, we can appreciate how the more menial objects mediate us and how we perceive the world.
(Note: Obviously there are ways to navigate the world without being able to see, I wrote this post in the context of the knowledge I have as someone whose vision is correctable with prescription lenses.)
Sources
Jones, Caroline. “Senses”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 88-100.
Wegenstein, Bernadette. “Body”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 19-34.
Blog post written by Molly Kingsley
Image by Molly Kingsley
I loved your analysis, Molly! Glasses are a very important part of our lives and how we see the world and interact with it. I never thought of connecting glasses to Plato’s cave, but your connection makes a lot of sense now that I’ve read it.
You did such a great job analyzing glasses’ affordances, what would you say are some negative sides to wearing glasses as a mediator of the world? Are they always reliable?
Thanks Bara! For me personally, my glasses are perpetually dirty no matter how often I wipe them off. To have various things somewhat impeding my vision, and definitely altering my perspective of the world, is for sure a negative aspect of wearing glasses 24/7. As for reliability, I would say that as glasses are becoming more often than not made of plastic rather than metal and glass, they are becoming more reliable. Mine have fallen, been tossed aside, sat on, you name it and they’re still in wearable shape! Something tells me that wouldn’t be the case if they were made of actual glass.
I loved your post and thought you were so kind and refreshing. The manner in which you assumed your glasses as being more than an aid to the eyes as being something that shapes memory, identity, and perception was so fascinating. It made me think about how many things in our daily lives tacitly mediate our existence without us even realizing it. Your description of McLuhan’s “extensions of man” was especially interesting. Imagining glasses as an extension and yet also an alienation from the world feels so true that they enable you to see but also make you aware that what you see is always filtered through something. I liked also the way that you applied this in terms of Plato’s Cave. It raised an interesting question to me — do you think that having perfect vision without glasses would actually make your perception more real or would it just be another kind of mediation? That one on “volitional blindness” was pretty too. Giving up using your glasses to observe less but perhaps feel more reminded me of how so many times imperfection makes us feel the world differently. It is such a poetic approach to considering something so ordinary.
Thanks Mio!
Honestly I have no idea how to answer your question. My first instinct would be to assume that seeing without glasses is a more natural/authentic/real way of seeing the world, simply because there is no man-made interference that is impacting the way it is presented to you. However, everything in our world is man-made, including our perceptions! I think the starts a really interesting debate: who sees the world for what it truly is? Does anyone?
Hi Molly,
As a fellow glasses wearer, I felt at home reading your blog post. Because wearing glasses is such a natural part of my everyday life as well, I thought it was very interesting how you weaved that in with critical theory from class, especially when you mentioned ‘Body and McLuhan’s “extensions of man.” I can’t help but relate to what you said that glasses were an extension by necessity and they really do mediate our world everyday, because we need them, even though they are entirely tethered objects. Well done!
Hi Molly!
I really appreciated this post! As someone who’s never used glasses, I can’t really speak on the experience, but I’ve always found it interesting that the idea of an item becoming a necessary tool for “survival”. The part that stood out to me the most was when you mentioned self-expression and sense of identity. My mom has always worn glasses throughout my life, and I remember when I was a kid. I would make a big deal when she changed her glasses, as I felt like something in her identity had changed. Although it was just a small change, five-year-old me thought it was life-changing when a pair of glasses switched from blue to red. To me, this shows how glasses are truly an extension of the self (or man) as mentioned by McLuhan. They are more than just an item or accessory; they are a sign of self-expression and mediate your everyday life. I really find this perspective interesting, as I’ve been privileged with my eyesight. It’s interesting to think about how something so small can mediate someone’s everyday life and how they are tied to one’s ability to navigate the world.
Hi Molly!
I really loved this post! As someone who wears glasses too, I totally get what you mean about them becoming part of who you are. The way you connected that to Plato’s cave was so clever—it really made me think about how much our vision is shaped by what helps us see. It’s such a thoughtful take on something we usually don’t even notice!