50
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
Regaining critical agency through adaptation
An awareness of intermedial complexity can be made productive for rethinking intermedial relations in terms of constant, reciprocal processes
of interaction by human or non-human agents with emergent properties.
As metaphors, both evolution and the network shift our attention towards
such features of complex systems as reciprocity, self-organization, and
co-adaptation as well as their interaction. Eventually, we as scholars have
to note that we are also actors in the network of adaptations, since, as
Humberto Maturana proclaimed, “everything said is said by an observer.” 64
If we regard adaptations as a set of connections, the first connection that has
to be made or, to use the terminology of neuroscience, that is activated, is
made by the observer. Hutcheon remarks that adaptations can potentially be
treated as original texts in their own right and as adaptations. In considering
what she calls an “adaptation’s double-nature” she argues that to label
something as “adaptation” is already an interpretative choice made by the
observer. 65 To call something an “adaptation” thus establishes a contingent
connection, one that is not necessarily, or essentially, given, and could be
imagined otherwise. This system-theoretical insight that our observations
are bound to our own perceptual system seems to be particularly valid
for adaptation studies, since the research focus of case studies is always
necessarily a reduction of potential cross-links and effects. At the same
time, a network approach also puts emphasis on the negotiating processes
within an interpretive community. While the individual observer may be
bound to an isolated perspective, adaptations function largely within more
or less heterogeneous social communities. The functions of adaptations
therefore have to be regarded in the context of cultural negotiation processes
with competing viewpoints and functional ascriptions, a view that further
complicates the contingent cultural status of adaptations (if, for example,
fan communities pertain to the fidelity values much more persistently than
adaptation scholars).
A perspective that takes seriously the relational and complex dynamics
of adaptations foregrounds the functions of adaptations, thus undermining
attempts to hierarchize, and make value judgments based on misleading
notions of “origin,” “fidelity,” and “purpose.” Instead, such an approach
emphasizes the value of process, diversity, and creativity of adaptations as
64 Humberto Maturana and Francisco Valera, Autopoesis and Cognition. The Realization of
Living (Dordrecht, Boston: D. Reidel, 1980), 8.
65 Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation (New York: Routledge, 2006), 6.
AdAptAtion in the Age of MediA ConvergenCe
Regaining critical agency through adaptation
An awareness of intermedial complexity can be made productive for rethinking intermedial relations in terms of constant, reciprocal processes
of interaction by human or non-human agents with emergent properties.
As metaphors, both evolution and the network shift our attention towards
such features of complex systems as reciprocity, self-organization, and
co-adaptation as well as their interaction. Eventually, we as scholars have
to note that we are also actors in the network of adaptations, since, as
Humberto Maturana proclaimed, “everything said is said by an observer.” 64
If we regard adaptations as a set of connections, the first connection that has
to be made or, to use the terminology of neuroscience, that is activated, is
made by the observer. Hutcheon remarks that adaptations can potentially be
treated as original texts in their own right and as adaptations. In considering
what she calls an “adaptation’s double-nature” she argues that to label
something as “adaptation” is already an interpretative choice made by the
observer. 65 To call something an “adaptation” thus establishes a contingent
connection, one that is not necessarily, or essentially, given, and could be
imagined otherwise. This system-theoretical insight that our observations
are bound to our own perceptual system seems to be particularly valid
for adaptation studies, since the research focus of case studies is always
necessarily a reduction of potential cross-links and effects. At the same
time, a network approach also puts emphasis on the negotiating processes
within an interpretive community. While the individual observer may be
bound to an isolated perspective, adaptations function largely within more
or less heterogeneous social communities. The functions of adaptations
therefore have to be regarded in the context of cultural negotiation processes
with competing viewpoints and functional ascriptions, a view that further
complicates the contingent cultural status of adaptations (if, for example,
fan communities pertain to the fidelity values much more persistently than
adaptation scholars).
A perspective that takes seriously the relational and complex dynamics
of adaptations foregrounds the functions of adaptations, thus undermining
attempts to hierarchize, and make value judgments based on misleading
notions of “origin,” “fidelity,” and “purpose.” Instead, such an approach
emphasizes the value of process, diversity, and creativity of adaptations as
64 Humberto Maturana and Francisco Valera, Autopoesis and Cognition. The Realization of
Living (Dordrecht, Boston: D. Reidel, 1980), 8.
65 Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation (New York: Routledge, 2006), 6.