Often when one thinks of ‘radio’, one may see the figure of the transmission tower, sending out signals across the landscape, a monolith of signal, creating spheres of influence over a large space. But this is only the larger narrative of Transmission, that which has been forced upon us by corporate interests, state interests, all working within the restraints of the dominant corporation, or over the guidelines of the FCC. One may not think of it as such, but the electromagnetic spectrum is ‘real estate’. certain modes of communications belong to certain bands, certain content can only be distributed through specific channels, but really this is only the illusion of the Law. ‘Interference’ is an excuse made so that corporate and state interests can be disseminated to the largest demographic, its a question of control, not one of ecstatic freedom, where there can be a heterogeneous lot of content, each transmission a haeccity, bursting forth into the airwaves, dancing on venue that is everywhere that it can be received. That beautiful coupling, Brecht and Benjamin had their own thoughts in their time when radio was in its infancy, before it became disenchanted by monopolization.
“The crucial failing of this institution has been to perpetuate the fundamental separation between practitioners and the public, a separation that is at odds with its technological basis. A child can see that it is in the spirit of radio to put as many people as possible in front of a microphone on every possible occasion…” (Reflections on Radio)
The key phrase to locate here is ‘a separation that is at odds with its technological basis’. Radio transmission is rhizomatic. Brecht, a ardent ‘transceptionist’ believed that radio was to ‘bring one into a relationship instead of isolating him’. Implicit in the technology then, is this element of inclusion. This may remind one of Deleuze’s concept of the ‘refrain’, and maps perfectly unto the three aspects of it as well. And in microtransmission, there can be a source, but it is never its center, a signal is distributed across a nomos, but isn’t the only expression of the source. The source can come from anywhere—a transciever can both transmit and receive a signal. It is territorial, but it is not definite. Microtransmission can serve as the medium for transduction to occur, where its milieu can serve as a basis for another milieu, similar but never self-same, or radically different.
On the question of the micro-political, microtransmission would not be a forum, an axial point in which a molecular revolution would be possible, but would rather create a collective assemblage of enunciation, where transversal and transformations of subjectivities would reach a pitch speed. Microradio, Microtransmission is an assemblage, it is not a possibility, or an actuality, its activity is inherent in its techniological machinery. The best example of this would be Sandy Stone’s ‘Nano-cast Task Force’, a series of microtrancievers that were purposed for small communities without a means of assembly. This technology would create a rhizomatic self-healing network that is not contingent on an arborescent model of transmission (radio tower, etc), but rather takes each individual as a node in the network. This means that radio production would itself be molecular, that each node is the bridge for sending and recieving, for relaying a signal would only be limited by participation in what is also concieveably a passive process.
So what does this mean? We are in the precarious situation of hearing, and not listening—what is sent to us through the airwaves should really incite a Benjaminian encounter with the aural. Day by day when the spectrums open up, and then are auctioned off to corporations that use it to sell us even more stuff—isn’t it about time we take it back?
