{"id":806,"date":"2025-11-11T00:31:35","date_gmt":"2025-11-11T07:31:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/?p=806"},"modified":"2025-11-15T18:57:28","modified_gmt":"2025-11-16T01:57:28","slug":"materialism-and-mediation-the-shared-critique-of-the-subject-object-divide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/archives\/806","title":{"rendered":"Materialism and Mediation: The Shared Critique of the Subject-Object Divide"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Photo by Aubrey Ventura<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Grant Bollmer\u2019s Materialist Media Theory<\/em> and Dennis Weiss\u2019 \u201cSeduced by the Machine\u201d both show how media are material forces that structure experience. Bollmer emphasizes how infrastructures perform power and organize social relations, while Weiss highlights how technologies act through the body. While Bollmer focuses on the political and social effects of material media, Weiss raises ethical questions about the authenticity of emotions mediated by technology. Together, they show that mediation is both material and emotional, intertwining power, feeling, and ethical experience in human life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overview of Bollmer’s (2019) Materialist Media Theory <\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Grant Bollmer\u2019s Materialist Media Theory: An Introduction<\/em> (2019) explores how materialist perspectives shape how we understand and study media. Bollmer argues that “media and technology are not mere tools” that shape our perceptions of power and discrimination; instead, they are “locations for the perpetuation of inequality and the management of social difference” (Bollmer 1). Throughout the book, he critiques the common form of solely studying symbols and representations in media studies, claiming that it disregards how media truly produce cultural and political effects. He explains that when we \u201conly examine meaning, what a medium is and does is limited to human perception and experience,\u201d which he identifies as a key flaw in traditional meaning-based media studies education (Bollmer 2). Instead, he encourages a materialist approach, where media act as “participants” that influence our relations with people, objects, and ideas, rather than serving as a passive, neutral tool (Bollmer 25).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overview of Dennis M. Weiss’ \u201cSeduced by the Machine\u201d <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Dennis M. Weiss\u2019s essay \u201cSeduced by the Machine: Human-Technology Relations and Sociable Robots\u201d (2014) from Design, Mediation, and the Posthuman tries to answer key questions related to sociable robots and \u201crelational artifacts,\u201d machineries designed to mimic emotions, empathy, and human connection. Weiss has used four major perspectives to support his discussion. He has used Turkle\u2019s \u201cMachines Take Advantage of Human Vulnerability\u201d to \u201cseduce us into a relationship\u201d (Turkle et al. 2006, 326). This can lead to a new kind of \u201cloner yet never alone,\u201d an extended loneliness, and a feeling of loss and longing that paradoxically arises in the context of an abundance of networked connections. Later, with Corry and Allenby in Final Position, bringing the ideas on emotional companionship, Corry describes the intense relief of one when receiving the illusion of a companion, which suggests that machines can fulfill a basic human social connection. However, Allenby, after fulfilling a human contact, is later shot to prove Corry\u2019s point of emotional bonding between human and machine, which raises the question of how to understand the role of relational robots in our lives. (Weiss 218) Lastly, Weiss mentions Verbeek\u2019s philosophical counterargument on the separation of subjects from objects, bringing a cautious view on how technology can co-shape human existence and morality, that \u201cwe are profoundly technologically mediated beings\u201d (Weiss 223).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparison of Bollmer\u2019s and Seduce by the Machine<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The strongest bond between Weiss and Bollmer is the broader philosophical critique of the separation between humans and technology, which is the central project of Bollmer\u2019s materialism theory. In his work on materialism, Bollmer claims that \u201cphysical materiality\u2026 matters in the shaping of reality\u201d in his Thesis 9, which, with media, we come into contact with and become something else (Bollmer, 176), with the key concept of interacting with some medium that alters human beings. This is going hand in hand with Weiss\u2019s argument using Verbeek\u2019s theory: \u201cHumans and technologies do not have a separate existence anymore but help to shape each other in myriad ways\u201d (Weiss 224). To further support this case, in Bollmer\u2019s book, he states that \u201cmedia are performative.\u201d He sees them as active participants: they do things. They shape how people, objects, and ideas relate to one another. He also argues that media are \u201cvital objects, possessive of their own agencies and abilities” (Bollmer 176). This is similar to Verbeek\u2019s philosophical argument that technologies are not just tools but actively \u201cco-shape\u201d human existence, morality, and perception. For example, the sociable robot, Paro, is the evidence for this case study, with the robot\u2019s material design, which is fluffy and reacts to touch. It becomes a presence that shapes the person\u2019s emotional response and social habits, which might match the definition of \u201ccompanion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the authenticity of human emotion is the core of the contradiction between Bollmer\u2019s theory and Weiss\u2019s essay. While Bollmer\u2019s materialism tries to move away from centering human experience and avoiding reducing the machines to human experience to focus more on material performance and political outcome, especially in thesis 5. Weiss focuses more on the simulated emotion (machine) and authentic emotion (human), which is the core of Turkle\u2019s critique. In his conclusion, the Twilight Zone<\/em> episode reveals the ethical cost of such mediation. The prisoner Corry fell into despair and realized that the companionship with Allenby was only an illusion, which shows a hierarchy where human connection is morally superior to the machine-mediated one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Distinguishing the Im\/material in screen-based media<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The distinction between what is material and what is immaterial has become increasingly vague with the rise of new media and technology, especially with the rise of artificial intelligence. Bollmer argues that \u201cmedia are vital objects, possessive of their own agencies and abilities,\u201d meaning that even intangible forms of media, such as an app interface and networks, influence our perception and behaviours. (Bollmer 174). On the other hand, Weiss’s focus on “social” robots and their ability to mimic human emotions and empathy exhibits its need for material design, such as their programmed tone of voice and trained outputs. Weiss explains that “the truth is that we are profoundly technologically mediated beings,” indicating that our emotional and thinking processes are continually built by the technologies we interact with. Considering this, the ability to differentiate between material and immaterial does not have much value in the context of screen-based media, as scrolling through an app or talking to an AI chatbot relies on physical systems and even our own bodies to operate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The importance of Materiality in Media Technology<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

According to Bollemer, materiality can be considered the basis of media, and to understand media, one has to move beyond the representation and meaning to how they act, affect, and structure relations between humans and technology, in other words, the material means. Weiss reinforces this by quoting the views of Turkle, who has written, \u201cMaterial culture carries emotions\u201d and ideas of startling intensity (Turkle 6) in Evocative Objects, <\/em>and <\/em>noting that media technology is already interacting and reshaping the material world. Concluding from both readings, materiality is crucial when it comes to discussing media technology because the function – or the \u201caffordance\u201d – of media technology is what humans can discern directly. This is the first step of understanding media technology, which is rapidly evolving and developing new applications every day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The affordance of media technology changes as their materiality changes, as Bollemer noted; media are not neutral and produce and sustain power structures through their material existence. Weiss supports this through examples and presents that the difference in materiality caused a large division in the human\u2019s attitude towards machines, which shows the importance of materiality when it comes to discussing media technology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Link back to previous readings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Bollmer argues that media are \u201cnot mere tools\u201d but \u201clocations for the perpetuation of inequality and the management of social difference\u201d (Bollmer 3), shaping how we relate to others, objects, and the world. By defining media as performative, things that act and make things happen, Bollmer emphasizes that technological mediation is an active, material process organizing human experience. Media are not neutral backdrops; they structure social relations and determine which bodies, histories, and interactions are made visible. Weiss illustrates this on a bodily level, showing that human attention, emotion, and desire are shaped by technological design. Users are pulled into emotional and social patterns by technology, and interfaces guide how they interact, showing that humans and machines shape each other. Annalee Newitz\u2019s \u201cMy Laptop\u201d personalizes this idea, describing a reciprocal relationship of care and dependence: \u201cIt doesn\u2019t just belong to me; I also belong to it\u201d (Newitz 88). Together, these works show that mediation operates materially, socially, and emotionally, challenging the traditional separation between subjects and objects. Humans don’t act alone on passive tools but are connected with technology, which influences who we are, how we interact, and what matters to us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Between the two readings, what defines materiality is presented in various ways. In conclusion, materiality is the wires, the shape, and the technical form of the medium, as well as the way they \u201cspeak\u201d and \u201cexpress\u201d to humans. Bollmer and Weiss may both agree that materiality is the crucial element in defining a media technology, which is not only a tool but also an outlet that shapes and bends our emotions and perception of the world. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Works Cited<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Dennis, Weiss M. \u201cDesign, Mediation & The Post Human. Chapter Eleven, Seduced by the Machine: Human-Technology Relations and Sociable Robots<\/em>.\u201d Accessed 8 Nov. 2025. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grant, Bollmer. \u201cMaterialist Media Theory: An Introduction.\u201d Bloomsbury<\/em>, www.bloomsbury.com\/us\/materialist-media-theory-9781501337093\/. Accessed 8 Nov. 2025. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Newitz, Annalee. \u201cMY LAPTOP.\u201d In Evocative Objects: Things We Think With<\/em>, edited by Sherry Turkle, 86\u201391. The MIT Press, 2007. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/j.ctt5hhg8p.14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkle, Sherry. Evocative Objects: Things we work with. The MIT Press<\/em>. 2011. https:\/\/williamwolff.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/turkle-objects-2011.pdf<\/a>. Accessed 9 Nov. 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkle et al. \u201cA Nascent Robotics Culture: New Complicities for Companionship.\u201d [online] AAAI Technical Report Series, July 2006. Available at: web.mit.edu\/sturkle\/www\/<\/a>nascentroboticsculture.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contributors: Lorriane Chua, Siming Liao, Eira Nguyen, Aubrey Ventura<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Photo by Aubrey Ventura Introduction Grant Bollmer\u2019s Materialist Media Theory and Dennis Weiss\u2019 \u201cSeduced by the Machine\u201d both show how media are material forces that structure experience. Bollmer emphasizes how infrastructures perform power and organize social relations, while Weiss highlights how technologies act through the body. While Bollmer focuses on the political and social effects … Continue reading Materialism and Mediation: The Shared Critique of the Subject-Object Divide<\/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":[3],"tags":[157,164,163,34,8,67,165],"class_list":["post-806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-critical-comparison","tag-bollmer","tag-comparison","tag-materialism","tag-materiality","tag-media-theory","tag-mediation","tag-weiss"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806","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=806"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":856,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806\/revisions\/856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}