{"id":694,"date":"2025-10-31T00:01:10","date_gmt":"2025-10-31T07:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/?p=694"},"modified":"2025-10-31T00:01:59","modified_gmt":"2025-10-31T07:01:59","slug":"what-alison-landsberg-and-van-den-eede-teach-us-about-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/694","title":{"rendered":"What Alison Landsberg and Van Den Eede Teach Us About Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Nowadays, we are seeing emerging technologies like the Apple Vision Pro, Fitbits, and Oura Rings, which are making our senses increasingly extended and reshaped by digital media. This begs the question as to whether or not our senses are being strengthened or even manipulated due to technology. Alison Landsberg, in “Prosthetic Memory” (1995) and Yoni Van Den Eede in “Extending Extension” (2014), question how we understand the relationship between humans and media. Landsberg sees media as a “prosthetic”, technology that inserts itself into ourselves, affecting our mind and body (Landsberg 175). On the other hand, Van Den Eede sees media as an extension that expands and redefines what it means for us to be “human” (Van Den Eede, 151). Though their ideas are slightly different, each reveals how media and technology may not be neutral tools, presenting media as the active players in shaping us as modern humans. In an increasingly mediated world, their discussions depict how representation and interface influence our identity, control, and perception in an increasingly mediated world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Landsberg: Prosthetic Memory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In “Prosthetic Memory,” <\/em>Allison Landsberg begins by presenting the idea that cinema and mass media can implant memories in audience members and viewers, reshaping their identity, even though these recollections never truly occurred to them in real life. Landsberg defines these as “memories which do not come from a person\u2019s lived experience in any strict sense\u201d, but are still real nonetheless (175). The media we consume, including film, television, and social media content, can make us feel as if we are living in someone else’s experiences rather than just following their narrative. As Landsberg explains, cinema is \u201caware of its ability to generate experiences and to install memories of them \u2015 memories which become experiences that film consumers both possess and feel possessed by” (176). Landsberg explained this idea using the film The Thieving Hand<\/em> (1908), a story that follows a one-armed man who is given an artificial limb that causes him to steal from people against his will (175). Just like how technology can create and amplify our experiences, oftentimes, it is extended too far, where there is a loss of control. In this case, media can write images, feelings, and experiences into our minds that were never ours. Now, our screens can edit our sense of who we are, rewritten by the cultural technologies we consume, whether we like it or not. Especially where the algorithm feeds AI content, Landsberg’s argument that media \u201cimplants\u201d memories is a cautionary tale that every image or video we encounter, real or fake, has the possibility to rewire who we think we are. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eede: Critical Awareness towards \u201cExtension\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Extending \u201cExtension\u201d, <\/em>Eede mainly discusses the relationship between technology and the human being by applying the idea proposed by Marshall McLuhan – technology is the extension of the human being – and uses this as a way to call on the public to perceive technology in a more critical way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eede points out that modern researchers often look at technology under an \u201cexternal\u201d context: \u201ctechnologies and humans are seen here as independent entities, and the relation between them\u2014the extension\u2014as an external supplement to both.\u201d(Eede, 156) This approach only leads to two extreme directions in which one side relies on technology blindly while the other side completely rejects it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To look at technology in a more practical sense one needs to accept that technology is not only \u201csimple intermediaries\u201d or a tool for humans to use but also acts as a source of influence that co-shapes human beings. To internally approach technology, one has to accept that we have already intertwined with technology, though one should remember to trust their own thinking rather than technology, despite its convenience in many aspects. At the same time, according to Eede, technology is also self-tracking and constantly shifting its position in the human-technological relationship and the boundaries between it and humans. This goes back to Eede\u2019s promotion in critical thinking in a time when everyone needs to have awareness when it comes to treating technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Common ground and relations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eede and Landsburg both made similar statements along with their main ideas when it comes to human-media relations. Eede emphasized on the fact that technology and media can influence and co-shape human beings, and that technology today should be seen as an internal element for humans since they can reflect and intervene with what people think they originally thought. The idea similar, or even can be considered an continual to \u201cextending the mind through technology\u201d can be found in Landsburg\u2019s works, in which he describes how human memories can be influenced by what they watch on different media outlets and so \u201ctricking\u201d the mind to accept them as part of reality – consciously or subconsciously. In both works, the authors try to raise the awareness amongst the public to see media and technology in a more critical way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Main differences<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While both thinkers see media as a force that is entangled with human experiences, they approach these ideas from different perspectives. Landsberg’s concept of prosthetic memory depicts media entering<\/em> our bodies and creating emotional memories that are not ours. On the other hand, Eede focuses on media as an entity that is “an extension of ourselves” (151), rather than media being inserted into us. His perspective is loyal to McLuhan’s thinking about media as \u201ctechnology is an extension of the human being, of human organs, body parts, senses, capabilities, and so on. \u201d (153). For Eede, media stretches and reshapes our sensory boundaries; it changes the way we move, see, and act in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Landsberg emphasizes how media implants memories and emotions, while Eede is concerned in how media transforms our abilities in perception and our abilities as humans. Lansberg approaches media with more regard for its ability to emotionally penetrate ourselves with new memories, producing empathy and identity through what she calls the \u201cunsettled boundaries between real and simulated ones\u201d (174). In contrast, Eede’s priority in his thinking is not about emotional manipulation but about our loss of understanding of how media shape us while we use them, which is becoming increasingly unclear. Eede mentions technology itself creates a \u201cfog to distort our sight; a blindness we are victim to or, even more precisely, an inability to assess the \u201cwhy\u201d and the \u2018how\u2019 of technologies in an immediate and direct way, at a glance so to speak.\u201d (168). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contextualizing in Media Theory<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Landsberg and Eede remind us that media are not just things that we consume, because it is a heavy influence on how we think, feel, and behave. We\u2019ve often returned to McLuhan\u2019s idea that \u201cthe medium is the message.\u201d Van Den Eede explicitly extends this saying, while Landsberg adds by presenting the implantation of memories and emotion. This shows that modern media can impact us from many directions, both outward and inward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even further, Ingold\u2019s mention of correspondence in Making<\/em> or Gibson\u2019s \u201ceducation of attention\u201d also applies here. According to Ingold, our perception arises through actively interacting with materials. Then, for Gibson, we observe affordances that invite us to act. Landsberg\u2019s ideas similarly lean toward feeling through film\u2019s affordances, while Van Den Eede\u2019s extensions demand continual adaptation to technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both of the readings emphasized on the importance of critical thinking with media and technology, and in a society filled with advertisements, new technology and implementations of various ideas from billions of people, critical awareness and consideration to accepting these information are indeed of vital importance. Meanwhile, not easily accepting the provided ideas also extends to the researching grounds – taking in the ideas and reminders from Eede and Landsburg, implementing them as an \u201cextension\u201d to our own thoughts and memories entirely without critical consideration is probably not what the authors would like to see, either. Indeed, our knowledge should come from our own interactions <\/em>with materials, and this should be kept in mind in both interactions with the passages by Eede and Landsburg as well as with media and technology in our daily lives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Landsberg, Alison. \u201cProsthetic Memory: Total Recall<\/em> and Blade Runner<\/em>.\u201d Cyberspace\/Cyberbodies\/Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment<\/em>, edited by Mike Featherstone and Roger Burrows, SAGE Publications, 1995, pp. 175\u2013186.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Den Eede, Yoni. \u201cExtending \u2018Extension\u2019: A Reappraisal of the Technology-as-Extension Idea through the Case of Self-Tracking Technologies.\u201d Design, Mediation, and the Posthuman<\/em>, edited by Pieter Vermaas et al., Lexington Books, 2014, pp. 151\u2013164.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Image: Pierznik, Christopher. \u201cOur Brains Can\u2019t Handle Technology.\u201d Medium<\/em>, 5 June 2019, https:\/\/medium.com\/the-passion-of-christopher-pierznik-books-rhymes\/our-brains-cant-handle-technology-8dfabe90505d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contributers:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Siming Liao, Aubrey Ventura<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nowadays, we are seeing emerging technologies like the Apple Vision Pro, Fitbits, and Oura Rings, which are making our senses increasingly extended and reshaped by digital media. This begs the question as to whether or not our senses are being strengthened or even manipulated due to technology. Alison Landsberg, in “Prosthetic Memory” (1995) and Yoni … Continue reading What Alison Landsberg and Van Den Eede Teach Us About Technology<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":103160,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[135,136,124,7,8,45,137,123],"class_list":["post-694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-other","tag-critical-comparison-of-texts","tag-extension","tag-landsberg","tag-mass-media","tag-media-theory","tag-memory","tag-prostheses","tag-van-den-eede"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/103160"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=694"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":697,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694\/revisions\/697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}