Geoff Lealand

I guess we have all had the experience of pointing a remote device at
the wrong point of focus, and wondered why nothing was appearing on the
screen. Or having sat on the TV remote accidentally, to create mayhem on
the screen.

That might be the only times we have become more aware of our dependence
on the remote. But the impact of such devices is much deeper and
significantly more significant, according to Caetlin Benson-Allott's
recent publication *Remote Control* (2015).  This investigation of the
history, use and social impact of the remote control is another of the
natty little Object Lessons series from Bloomsbury; short, palm-sized
interrogations of everyday objects or practices such as *Refrigerator*,
*Golf Ball* and *Waste*.

![](http://cms.cstonline.net/resizeimage.php?width=135&height=185&image=http://cdn.cstonline.net/assets/image/user_92/412fX-pq4DL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg){.addCaption
.aligncenter loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="135" height="185"}

This history of the remote control begins with experiments in the 1890s,
when remote switches were used to detonate even more explosive devices,
such as the German FL-7 or *fernlenboote* (remote steering boat), which
was designed to set off large loads of explosives via a fifty-mile long
cable. Both Tesla and Marconi were involved in such early experiments.

Remote controls devices, again tethered to lengthy wires, were developed
in the early days of radio in America; often marketed as a status symbol
for the household, as well as 'taping into consumers' desires for
control over commercial media' (25). The theme of 'control' is a
recurring motif in Benson-Allott's history, as she highlights the
critical distinction between 'control' and 'power', as in the misleading
claims made for early TV remotes (dating from Zenith's 'Lazy Bones'
device of 1950), and subsequent claims made about other electronic
gadgets,

*They helped convince us that remote control was the same thing as
active engagement with the media. Remotes do offer many conveniences,
but the "freedom" to sit back passively and choose is not the same thing
as cultural intervention.* (46)

We might describe this as distinguishing between having some control
over content of television (channel surfing, for example) but having no
control over the agenda (the inability to challenge the commercial
imperatives of television).

Benson-Allott does not pay attention to another remote device, found in
those homes of those individuals who comprise the panels for Peoplemeter
measurement of television viewing.  I think it would have been useful to
have done so for such folk now constitute the official television
audience in most countries,  having a little more power than the rest of
us,  who have no say.

This is the only significant omission from this interesting little book
(which can be read in a night), which adds weight to the argument that
media shapes us in ways we seldom acknowledge nor discuss. It allows to
focus on the economic and social impact of one seemingly innocent
device, diverting our attention away from the screen for a brief moment
as it activates other effects---from encouraging us to spend more time
sitting down, to shaping new forms of patriarchal dominance of family
spaces (males hogging the remote).

**Geoff Lealand **is Associate Professor in Screen and Media Studies,
University of Waikato, New Zealand, where he teaches and writes about
world cinema, television, children and media, and media education. You
can check out his current research
activities [HERE](http://www.cinemasofnz.info/).  A yet to be fulfilled
ambition is to watch all episodes of *The Wire*. He has been writing
various pieces based on his research on Shirley Temple 'double' contests
held in New Zealand in the 1930s;  most recently including these
investigations of cultural memory and fandom into his contribution on
the child star in the Routledge Companion to Global Popular Culture,
edited by  fellow-cst contributor Toby Miller.


I guess we have all had the experience of pointing a remote device at the wrong point of focus, and wondered why nothing was appearing on the screen. Or having sat on the TV remote accidentally, to create mayhem on the screen. That might be the only times we have become more aware of our dependence on the remote.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

WHERE DO I POINT THIS THING?