The Postal Age

• The author first explains that in order to understand the importance of the speed of the post, railroad, and telegraph, we must first understand the how these systems were used. Access is very important in order to understand how these communications systems fit within society.  For example, in the first third of the century, people did not organize themselves around postage or the expectations of postal contact. During this period, postage was a symbol of governmental control and countrywide connectedness.

• The author also speaks to how society had to form a new daily behavior of inquiry and delivery with the widespread growth of postage. For example, although timeliness of arrival of a letter was decent, people did not organize themselves in a way that they could receive that letter and distribute it efficiently. Only with a further societal development after the physical development of a speedy postage system did people begin to use the system in an organized way.

• The high cost of sending a letter also strongly affected how society decided to use the system. Franking and other ways to supplant the costs were utilized by those with privilege. However, for some, this forced postage to remain an activity that would be used rarely for special occasions or for sending mail over shorter distances.

Comment: I think that it's interesting to think of a technological development in terms of how it is not only received by society, but how society must organize around itself to effectively implement the new technology in an effective and beneficial manner. With advancement comes a restructuring, and with postage, this restructuring meant implementing a system of delivery, reception, and widespread use. 

Question: The reading states: "Letters were priced beyond the reach of most Americans, not because technological developments had yet to lower the costs of transmitting the mail, but because letters were expected to finance the main business of the post. (Newspapers)" How do we feel about this in a modern context? Do you think giving privilege to the press by means of charging common people more is a valid activity? How could we relate this scenario to a political phenomena today?