.
application/pdf
2036-461X
19051
5
en
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Cinéma & Cie. Film and Media Studies Journal
Toward a Spatial Materialism of the "Moving Image": Locating Screen Media Within Changing Regime of Transport
Text.Serial.Journal
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie
4
Thematic issue / Section thématique
2004-10-01
2022-11-20
2004-10-01
2024-02-14
Cinéma & Cie
James Hay
2004/10/01
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
2036-461X
5
en
Toward a Spatial Materialism of the "Moving Image": Locating Screen Media Within Changing Regime of Transport
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie/article/download/19051/16810
4
TOWARD A SPATIAL MATERIALISM OF THE “MOVING IMAGE:”
LOCATING SCREEN MEDIA WITHIN CHANGING REGIMES OF
TRANSPORT
James Hay, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign




  During the summer and fall of 2002, the Japanese automaker Toyota ran a television
advertisement in the U.S. for its latest mini-van. The ad begins while the mini-van,
idling at a stoplight, is joined in the adjacent lane by a 1960s-vintage Chevrolet Impala,
an icon of a by-gone genre of “family car” and of a once proud stage of American auto-
mobility (mythologized in films such as American Graffiti and the TV-series Happy
Days), and subsequently an icon of the subaltern “hood,” the Mexican-American “low-
rider” and gang-banger. The ad contrasts the owners/drivers of the two vehicles. The
owners/drivers of the van are a white, middle-class (presumably) nuclear family – a
middle-aged man (presumably the father) behind the steering wheel, a woman of the
same age (presumably his wife) seated in the front passenger seat, and the barely dis-
cernible heads of (presumably) their children in the backseat. Seated in the retro-vehi-
cle aside the van are two shadowy male figures. After exchanging furtive glances, the
drivers of the Chevy demonstrate their road prowess, making their vehicle rock and
gradually elevate slightly by means of a hydraulic suspension system, in the fashion of
“car-dancing” and “car-hopping.” The van’s driver, not to be outpaced in the display of
bravura, responds by elevating his van completely off the pavement before it acceler-
ates skyward, leaving the Chevy’s occupants to stare in amazement. The source of the
van’s spectacular feat of pure auto-mobility (the purely transported self) – the van’s true
guiding, “intelligent” force/driver – is revealed to be the extra-terrestrial being from
Steven Spielberg’s ET, who blinks naively between the two children in the back seat. All
three of the back-seat passengers are spectators not only of this street-scene but of the
Spielberg film, which they were watching on the van’s backseat video screen. The van’s
turbo-charge, its secret street-weapon (capable of distancing the van from the potential
perils of urban encounters with more primitive road technology) turns out to be, after
all, its ability, through the most “intelligent” technology, to accommodate a more fully
transported self – the well-behaved family-vehicle, the parents whose extra-terrestrial
road-freedom, hyper-mobility, and transcendence of urban gridlock relies upon the
integration of a back-seat video monitor for managing the behavior of the children.
  This essay’s intervention/contribution to a special issue about media-in-“transition”
has only partly and peripherally to do with screen media and their spectators.
Furthermore, while the essay is interested in the historical “transition” of cinema and
media that this ad represents by constructing various differences (between a film block-
buster and its twentieth-anniversary re-release, between cinema, television, and the
“moving image” then and now, between futurist and retro-fitted forms of “transport-
ing” spectators through cinema/media), the essay considers a somewhat different set of
questions than have driven film or media studies/histories, which have directed so

CINEMA & Cie, no. 5, Fall 2004                                                          ­43
JAMES HAY

much attention to the relation between representation and a mode of production or
between representation and ideology, which have understood cinema/media only or
primarily in terms of consumption and/or spectatorship, and which overemphasize the
distinctiveness – the discrete history and “transitions” – of media or cinema. The
Toyota-ad certainly does capitalize on a new regime of production and distribution that
is about delivering consumers from one media site or one media industry to another,
here linking television advertising to promotions for films (and a film whose epony-
mous character, ET, was used twenty years earlier in television ads for another product,
Reese’s Pieces candies). The ad therefore affirms a common theme from histories of a
post-1960’s Hollywood system of production and distribution: the ad’s televisuality as
yet another instance of product tie-in, of delivering consumers/spectators from one
medium (TV) to another, and of the corporate and technological synergy for linking
one medium into another (what are the differences between TV and cinema any
longer?). There also is a longstanding vein of film/media criticism and historiography
that would explain this ad and its power/effects in terms of its ideological or hegemon-
ic work, read through the ad’s formal/representational practice (e.g., the play of gazes in
and of the ad, or the ad’s construction of a set of differences and identities recognizable
to viewers/consumers). However, that Gramsci saw U.S. automobile production, “Ford-
ism,” as a way of describing a stage of capitalist production, distribution, and con-
sumption, or that the (global) dispersion of U.S. automobile production over the last
decades of the 20th century often serves as an example par excellence of a post-Fordist
stage of capitalism, or that the ad’s or movie’s narratives of the transported spectator
could be said to define a set of ideological-subject positions within changing/converg-
ing media forms, or that the ad represents the emergence of new media convergence as
a new ideological apparatus, or that the ad epitomizes the Baudrillardian analogy of the
“smart car” as the purest conflation of virtual and physical forms of transport (where
the screen becomes the scene) do not allow me to address a set of questions about the
“transitions” of cinema (or screen media) that my brief essay is interested in discussing
because this vein of media critique tends to understand cinema/media as technologies
whose capacity for control, for producing effects, for mattering, has mostly to do with
the particular economy, form, and history of cinema and/or media. One alternative
model or counter-point to this tendency is what I have called elsewhere a spatial mate-
rialism of screen media.1
  A spatial materialism of screen media directs attention to the place of screen media
within an arrangement of social/activity spaces. There are several implications of this
heuristic that deserve brief (albeit schematic) clarification. One concerns the concep-
tion of the social. Rather than considering the social purely or primarily in terms of
media practices, and rather than understanding the social as an ideological formation
or as its opposite (material conditions of social relations), a spatial materialism under-
stands the social as a spatial distribution/production of resources and facilities that are
themselves a condition for social meaning, agency, and control. A spatial materialism,
in this respect, builds upon Henri Lefebvre’s conception of social space as produced (in
part by capitalist economy and by cultural representation) and as productive of various
practices.2 In describing social space as productive, Lefevbre thus gestures toward an
alternative to the base-superstructure binarism upon which various forms of modern
social theory and cultural criticism have relied. Social formation and agency cannot be
reduced to a single motor or condition, space being produced – and made productive –

­44
                                          TOWARD A SPATIAL MATERIALISM OF THE “MOVING IMAGE”

through multiple social practices. Furthermore, a spatial materialism is not about sub-
stituting a spatial for a historical conception of the social, or about seeing geography
and history as binary categories, but about recognizing the historical contingencies of
the social as spatial arrangement and about the spatial distribution/arrangement of
resources and facilities as productive of historical possibilities – as a condition for
“making history.”
  A spatial materialism of screen media not only begins with the question of locating
media – of discovering where media matter – but, in so doing, it de-centers the screen as
the primary or only locus of attention for media studies. There are at least two ways of
thinking about the implications of this. One is somewhat methodological, focusing on
the screen as part of a built environment rather than discussing screen practices purely
as matters of form, representation, meaning, and ideology, and of culture understood in
those terms. A spatial materialism of the televisual, for instance, would consider how
particular technologies of televisuality are integral to the material construction of par-
ticular sites – room, houses, malls, parking garages, retail stores, bars, airports, fitness
facilities, sports facilities, or (as I want to discuss below) cars.3 Recognizing that any site
of televisuality matters in its connectedness to other sites (as part of “networks”), a spa-
tial materialism also would recognize how these sites pertain to larger scales or tech-
nological zones,4 such as suburbs, cities, regions, or global networks. A spatial materi-
alism also would assess the instrumentality or mattering of media/communication
technologies through these sites and zones, considering how their spatial organization
and governance relied upon the particular – strategic and tactical – emplacement of
technologies therein. What, in other words, has the material construction of domiciles
and the running of suburban households around televisual technologies to do with the
spatial organization and management of urban parking garages through video surveil-
lance monitors? How does these become co- or inter-dependent spaces within an envi-
ronment built upon/through the strategic/tactical emplacement of screen media?
  A second implication concerns the question of subjectification. In de-centering (or
attempting to locate) screen media, a spatial materialism of screen media is concerned
with spectatorship mostly as a momentary engagement within the paths and relative
mobility of social actors. While the screen may be increasingly part of life in early 21th
century societies, its uses are not uniform, nor is the screen ubiquitous (despite the pro-
nouncements of some epochalist/postmodernist accounts). Spectatorship is, in other
words, not merely the only way of understanding spectators, who perform other activi-
ties in their everyday lives, nor is spectatorship purely a function or a matter of one’s
engagement with a general screen technology (there are, for instance, different applica-
tions of screens and fenestration).
  Most importantly, however, a spatial materialism’s focus on the site where screen
media are engaged within the routes of the everyday lives of social classes, bodies, and
populations moves away from the question of the power of screen media over a subject-
spectator to a question of the relative physical access and relative mobility of social
classes and populations to and from these sites – across an environment and within a
socio-spatial arrangement of screen media “facilities” (i.e., those places/zones that are
available to these classes and populations). What, for instance, was involved in making
nickelodeons available to women, or women with children, or middle-class women,
during the early twentieth century in the U.S.?5 And what did that accessibility have to
do with the regulation of women’s mobility and access through places outside the

                                                                                            ­45
JAMES HAY

movie theater, i.e., from home, and through cities or particular zones of cities previ-
ously unavailable to them? How did the emplacement and distribution of movie the-
aters across particular zones of U.S. cities during the 1950s (e.g., drive-in movie theaters
in the new predominately White, middle-class suburbs, as counterpoints to movie the-
aters for African-Americans in other parts of the city – away from the suburbs) con-
tribute to a socio-spatial arrangement – a dispersion of facilities, and a social-govern-
mental contract about where particular classes and populations could and should go,
where they felt secure and thus capable of enjoying themselves, of recreating. The
question of how, for instance, television came to matter within the construction of the
suburban house/household during the 1950s and 1960s in the U.S. had to do with a set
of possible sites available or unavailable to different classes and populations outside
homes and across cities. A spatial materialism, in this respect, is not just about the
emplacement of screen media but of how mobilities become productive of social space
and of broader socio-spatial arrangements that govern the lives (the movements and
intersections) of various classes and populations. As I intend to explain below, social
mobilities/travelings are productive of social space and the distribution/arrangement
that regulates access.
  Both of these implications point to historical as well as spatial considerations. A spa-
tial materialism’s concern about how spaces are produced, fashioned, organized,
secured, and managed, or how spaces become productive of livability, recreation, priva-
cy, security, and governance for particular classes and populations, both involve figur-
ing out how the production of space has occurred amidst emerging and residual distri-
butions/arrangements that relied partly upon screen media technology. That movie
theaters in the old downtown areas of U.S. cities during the 1950s became sites of strug-
gle over practices of racial segregation had everything to do with a changing forms of
access and mobility by different classes and populations in different zones of these
cities. Or that the struggles at these sites contributed to the transformation during the
early 1970s of certain downtown theaters into facilities where young White and
African-American movie-goers watched Blaxploitation and Kung-fu films,6 or that
urban movie theaters were transformed between the 1960 and 1980s into various cul-
tural facilities (discos, coffee shops) that sustained/hastened program of urban gentrifi-
cation which displaced an underclass and racial populations that occupied these zones
during the period of mass suburbanization, all are examples of how the formation of
new social spaces occur through/over prior ones, and how social spaces become pro-
ductive of changing paths and mobilities.
  The historical issue of the technological transition (transformation) of screen media
that this special issue takes as its object of study is not a separate matter from the ques-
tion of transit – of access and mobility, and just as importantly of how screen media
have been integral to forms/technologies of mobility, of how screen media move and
transport bodies in their relation to available forms and technologies of mobility. The
Toyota advertisement offers one way of thinking about this issue not only because it
recasts the automobile (or more precisely the mini-van, which has its own cultural
pedigree and social history in the U.S.) as a theater on wheels, but also because it makes
explicit the changing relation between the house (as an enclosed, relatively fixed
sphere of watching screen media) and the forms of transport such as the automobile on
which a particular regime of housing and household have relied. If the domestic sphere
has been a space from which one is connected to other sites through television, then

­46
                                          TOWARD A SPATIAL MATERIALISM OF THE “MOVING IMAGE”

how has it produced, and been produced by, social uses and cultural forms of transport
outside the home? That the TV ad for the Toyota mini-van represents the relation
between cinema/television and mobility as new, as a “new media convergence” perpet-
uates an epochalist impulse (evident also in writing about new information technolo-
gy) that ignores the longstanding (albeit changing) relation of screen media and spec-
tatorship to regimes of mobility, and the even more longstanding relation between
communication and transportation, which has been central to the organization and
governance of modern societies.7 In this sense, it also is worth recognizing how the ad’s
formulation of a new convergence occurs through changing regimes of mobility.
  In a certain sense, these were questions and issues that Raymond Williams addressed
in his argument (against McLuhanism and a technological determinism of “media”)
that television emerged, when it did, where it did, the way it did, and as rapidly as it did,
within new regimes of privacy and mobility – what he termed “mobile privatization.”8
Williams’s introductory chapter about technology and society is instructive for this
special issue on the “transitions” of screen media because he emphasizes television as a
technological assemblage of emerging and residual technical devices that coalesced
into a “social technology” and a broad set of social investments. Williams’s account of
television’s historical relation to mobile privatization is decidedly an account of a new
socio-spatial arrangement wherein domestic life was increasingly situated “at a dis-
tance,” though Williams is more interested in explaining television than in explaining
television’s instrumentality within this arrangement. Nor did he elaborate substantive-
ly the various forms of mobility to which the expression “mobile privatization” refers.
Although Williams’s account of television recognizes the role of tele-technologies such
as television (technologies for sensing/knowing over distance) in articulating privacy
and domesticity to mobility, the account stops short of considering the changing rela-
tion between technologies of mobility and the tele-visual technologies (the social tech-
nologies of screen media), or of considering how tele-technologies were becoming inte-
gral to the emerging ideal in the U.S. of the “mobile home” and privatized mobility.
  Lynn Spigel, has suggested that the emergence of portable television in the U.S. (a
rapid development over the 1960s) marked a new relation between the interiority and
exteriority of the domestic sphere as well as a new relation to self. Discussing the new
relation between interiority and exteriority of home, she concurs with Williams’s
account that television developed as a means of bringing the outside world into the
home, of fashioning the home as theater, but she notes that particularly during the
1960s television’s portability was represented as part of an emerging mobility associat-
ed with home-life and life from home – a transformation of the “home theater” into the
“mobile home” and a “vehicle of transport:”

  While early advertising promised viewers that TV would strengthen family ties by bringing
  the world into the living room, representations of portable receivers inverted this logic.
  Rather than incorporating views of the outdoor world into the home, now television prom-
  ised to bring the interior world outdoors.9

  Spigel suggests that the representation of television’s portability, in relation to fash-
ioning the home as mobile (i.e., transporting oneself outside through a new television
design-concept), contributed to a new social ideal and investment: “privatized mobili-
ty.” While inverting Williams’s term may not substantively change his term’s reference

                                                                                           ­47
JAMES HAY

to a new regime of privacy and mobility, Spigel rightly demonstrates the importance
not only of locating television on the paths to, from, and within households, but of con-
sidering how tele-technologies became integral to the movement of bodies that defined
the relation of home to itself and to an outside. Furthermore, portable TV as “privatized
mobility” (understood as a new relation between the interiority or exteriority of domes-
ticity) suggests for Spigel a new relation to self, the smaller scale of portable TV repre-
senting and actualizing the personalization of TV-watching in a period before narrow-
casting. (The personalization of the TV through its miniaturization and portability was,
in this respect, a condition for the subsequent emergence of satellite/cable-TV and nar-
rowcasting.) Elaborating the implications of a new relation to domesticity’s interiori-
ty/exteriority and of a new relation to self, Spigel thus devotes considerable attention to
the house as a “vehicle of transport”10 in order to discuss gendered forms of access and
mobility at home and from home. Her essay’s focus on television in the domestic
sphere, however, stops short of considering a development that was crucial to refash-
ioning television and the home as conjoined/interdependent “vehicles of transport”
(portable TV as an accouterment of mobile bodies and of homes designed for them):
how the relation between transport and communication (a regime of tele-technologies
such as television) pertained to auto-mobility as a broad social investment and ideal.
  As Williams’s account of television affirmed, television’s rapid emergence was inte-
gral to and dependent upon a new relation between transportation and communica-
tion. Though he never specifically mentions the automobile and highway/freeway sys-
tem as technologies shaping the new regime of mobility and privacy of tele-visuality in
everyday life, it is not difficult to extrapolate from his account that television’s rapid
and particular development, in relation to programs of mass suburbanization, occurred
through these and other mechanisms and practices of transfer – a broad socio-spatial
arrangement predicated upon these mechanisms.11 By “auto-mobility” I refer not sim-
ply to the car. The car has become easily the object most often identified with the term
automobility. I am more interested in “auto” as a reference to the self (e.g., auto-
matic/self-acting, auto-mated/self-generating, auto-nomous/self-sufficient) and in the
articulation of “auto” to various practices, knowledges, and rules pertaining to mobili-
ty – to the transported self. In this sense, the car is one technology of the (transported)
self which relied upon other technologies of transport (such as television) to accom-
plish – to shape the capacities of – particular forms of corporeal access and mobility
through a socio-spatial arrangement.12 How, in this respect, did the car, in its relation to
television and other tele-technologies, support auto-mobility as a social investment and
civic ideal (a form of active citizenship and a technology of “free individuals” and self-
sufficiency), particularly in the U.S. after World War Two? This question does not pre-
sume that auto-mobility abruptly developed as an ideal after World War Two or only in
those regions where television rapidly and massively became part of everyday life; on
the contrary, it directs attention to the historical and geographic relation between the
car and various tele-technologies such as television in part to rethink television’s his-
toric relation to the home or other enclosed, relatively immobile spheres of activity. The
portability of television (as part of new relation between the interiority and exteriority
of domestic life, and as part of a new relation to self) pertained to auto-mobility as a new,
dominant social investment and civic ideal.
  By considering auto-mobility (and televisuality and the car) this way also calls atten-
tion not only to the house as a “vehicle of transport” but to the car as a technology of

­48
                                        TOWARD A SPATIAL MATERIALISM OF THE “MOVING IMAGE”

communication – as media understood within a different logic of mediation than has
tended to drive media studies’ emphasis upon the transformation of media within
media practices. There are several points to make briefly on this issue. First, the car has
always been an assemblage of communication technologies (e.g., tail-lights, turning
indicators, license plates) that became part of car-design and use even before the advent
of car-radios in the 1930s. Many of these devices have linked the freedoms of automo-
bility, as driving, with programs and techniques of surveillance and governance – with
driving as a form of ethical behavior (road conduct) and thus as a form of citizenship.13
Second, in certain respects the application of the radio in cars (as a form of auto-mobil-
ity) preceded the emergence of television’s application to the domestic sphere.
Throughout the 1930s the radio in civilian cars became a portable/personalized form of
entertainment, and by the late 1930s, the radio was a standard feature of cars in the U.S.
Furthermore, as a portable technology of listening, linked to a technology of transport
(that itself was used for numerous social activities), the car radio became linked with a
technology of visuality. The car windshield, windows, and mirrors made driving with
the radio a new form of personalized/privatized tele-visuality (i.e., visuality over dis-
tance). Third, the car in the U.S. could accommodate a number of passengers and by the
1930s was becoming a form of family-travel. Following the Second World War, cars
increasingly were designed and promoted as family-vehicles (vehicles of a historical,
social model of family). The station-wagon, for instance, was one of the technologies
adapted to a new regime of mobility for a post-World War Two model of family-travel
and family-touring. However, as the number of cars per family in the U.S. increased over
the 1950s (i.e., as women and youth acquired their own vehicles), transportation
became further personalized. The portability of television, therefore, pertained to a
regime of mobility that surrounded – that lay outside – the house, even as the portabil-
ity of television was linking the design and uses of the (suburban) house with driving.
As a social investment and a civic ideal – as a practice of freedom, governance, and secu-
rity – watching television and driving became inter-dependent technologies of citizen-
ship suited for a new socio-spatial arrangement predicated upon a new regime of (auto-
mobility). While the sociality and civic ideals of the “family television” and the “family
car” survive, rearticulated (as the Toyota-ad demonstrates) to a new convergence of
communication and transport, their survival occurs in relation to the forms/technolo-
gies of portability and personalization of both media/communication and driving.
  Spigel rightly notes that television’s portability adhered to the ideal of “active citi-
zenship” formalized in part through Kennedy’s New Frontier-era programs (e.g., of
physical fitness and social involvement), but active citizenship was nothing short of a
new way of enacting/performing citizenship through technologies of mobility that
emphasized or were seen as “freeing” the self (and through portability and technologies
of transport, as posing a new set of governmental questions/problems about governing
and making safe bodies in motion). The transported self and its concomitant forms of
citizenship (freedoms, self-governance, self-security) occurred as much through televi-
sion’s portability as through the personalization and portability of other media tech-
nologies and through various technologies of transport – in short, a regime of auto-
mobility. In this respect, the link between active citizenship and auto-mobility has been
integral to a changing reasoning in the U.S. about freedom and governance – about the
reinvention of liberal governance. While tracing the historical trajectory of neo-liber-
alism lies beyond the limitations of this essay, my account of that trajectory would

                                                                                        ­49
JAMES HAY

emphasize both the contradictions of “active citizenship” during the 1960s (how the
1960s negotiated forms of social responsibility through a new entrepreneurialism) and
the re-articulation and deepening of active forms of citizenship, along with the porta-
bility and personalization of communication/media technologies, after the 1960s. The
television ad for Toyota is significant in this respect because it represents how the driv-
ing- and televisual-self converge at a new intersection of urban and suburban life as
well as a new relation in the twenty-first century with the legacy/inheritance of forms
of portability, personalization, and active citizenship – a regime of mobility and priva-
cy – from the 1960s. The ad’s promotion of new installations of screen media in the fam-
ily-vehicle are about reinventing the “mini-van,” as the 1980s version of the 1950s sta-
tion-wagon (after the 1960s articulation of the van with the freedoms of “liberation-
movements” and a “counter-culture”), but the ad also promotes a self/citizen/consumer
whose possibilities depend upon navigating a changing socio-spatial arrangement (sub-
urb, city, street, and the mobility of particular classes/populations) through a new con-
vergence between media and transportation technologies. Auto-mobility in the 21th
century U.S. refers to the articulation and hardwiring of physical and virtual travel,
such that a July 2003 newspaper ad for the latest General Motors products uses the
headline, “Putting the Pedal to the Microchip: Today’s GM Cars and Trucks Are as Much
about Brainpower as They Are about Horsepower,” to list the numerous ways that their
vehicles are improved through media/communication technology: “From DVD players
that entertain the kids, to XM Satellite Radios that entertain you, [in addition to Global
Positioning technology] we use technology to make driving better.”14
   “Improving” the car – making the car, video, and driver “smart” – is, in these exam-
ples, nothing short of a program for improving citizens as drivers of media and trans-
port, of fashioning a new, inter-active consumer/citizen/self, and thus of advancing lib-
eralism onto a changing socio-spatial arrangement wherein freedom, governance, and
security are questions of how and where one can travel.



1 James Hay, “Piecing Together What Remains of the Cinematic City,” in David B. Clarke (ed.),
  The Cinematic City (London: Routledge, 1997), pp. 209-229; James Hay, “Locating the
  Televisual,” Television and New Media, Vol. 2, no. 3 (August 2001), pp. 205-234.
2 Henri Lefebvre, La Production de l’espace (Paris: Anthropos, 1974); trans. The Production of
  Space (London: Blackwell, 1991).
3 Anna McCarthy, Ambient Television (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001).
4 Andrew Barry, Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society (London: Athlone,
  2002).
5 Lauren Rabinovitz, For the Love of Pleasure (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,
  1999).
6 See James Hay, “Rethinking the Intersection of Cinema and Youth,” Scope, http://www.not-
  tingham.ac.uk/film/journal/ (June 2002).
7 Armand Mattelart, L’Invention de la communication (Paris : La Découverte, 1994); trans. The
  Invention of Communication (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997).
8 Raymond Williams, Television: Technology and Cultural Form (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan
  University Press, 1992).
9 Lynn Spigel, “Portable TV: Studies in Domestic Space Travel,” in Welcome to the Dreamhouse:

­50
                                         TOWARD A SPATIAL MATERIALISM OF THE “MOVING IMAGE”

   Popular Media and Postwar Suburbs (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001), p. 71.
10 Ibid., p. 65.
11 See John Hartley, The Uses of Television (London: Routledge, 1999).
12 James Hay, Jeremy Packer, “Crossing the Media(n): Auto-mobility, the Transported Self, and
   Technologies of Freedom,” in Nick Couldry, Anna McCarthy (eds.), Media/Space (London-
   New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 209-232.
13 Ibid. See also James Hay, “Unaided Virtues: The (Neo-)Liberalization of the Domestic Sphere
   and the New Architecture of Community,” in Jack Bratich, Jeremy Packer, Cameron
   McCarthy (eds.), Foucault, Cultural Studies, and Governmentality (Albany, NY: SUNY Press,
   2003); Jeremy Packer, Mobility without Mayhem: Mass Mediating Safety and Automobility
   (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, forthcoming).
14 New York Times (July 17, 2003), pp. 14-15.




                                                                                           ­51
