Week 10
- This first question stems from a Facebook conversation between me, Alyssa, and Avery. Oh, the irony. In “Always On,” Turkle argues that pervasive computing and communication technologies are changing the way we live in the world, and not for the better. E-mail, Facebook, mobile phones, mp3 players, laptops, and the like are anxiety-provoking, experience-destroying, and beyond our control. As one who has acutely felt the anxiety of a Facebook conversation gone horribly wrong (you know, once you’ve said something on someone’s Wall, they disagree, and a string of back and forth ensues to the point where seeing that red little notification bubble makes you want to vomit), I am aware that this “problem” is not—cannot—be the only or the most important site of danger in the age of technology. One need only to turn to Giles Slade’s work on planned obsolescence or the film “Pyramids of Waste” to see that there is more to technology’s potential for harm than Turkle’s fear of hyperconnectedness and social anxiety. Why, then, does her argument carry so much weight? This might be a good moment to talk about transnational flows of material and information and the ways in which certain conversations about technology reflect global circuits of privilege and power.
- Ito et al’s discussion of mobile media “kits” led me to a similar series of questions about power and class. The authors explain that they “focused on individuals transitioning into the workforce from study at elite universities, as they could be expected to be both technologically savvy and confronted with novel challenges, and thus potential early adopters and influencers” (69). Hold the (smart) phone. While these generalization undoubtedly have some truth to them, is there not space to discuss the particular class dimensions that make this demographic capable of being “savvy?” How does graduation from an “elite university” impact your use of these technologies and these modes of use?
- Finally, I found myself thinking about the general deployment of the authentic in all of these readings, to some degree or another. What are authentic interactions, authentic experiences, and authentic relationships/social networks? This takes me back to our very early discussion on the distinction between “space” and “place” as it seems that much of the way we grant something authenticity revolves around the notion of shared physical place. The home, school, the workplace, the neighborhood, the grocery store are all recognizable as places, and coincidentally enough, these are also the places where interaction is deemed authentic. Online spaces are then formulated as just that, spaces in which the interaction is inauthentic and therefore lacking.
Definitions
Body: The physical/corporeal form which, in a complex process of internal and external discipline, is shaped to interact with that which is outside of it in a temporally, culturally, and socially specific manner. Not necessarily organic but often implied to be, especially in terms of authenticity and relationship-forming.
Place: A space whose specificity is connected not only to the bodies that occupy it, but also the ideas that are mapped onto it. Like body, it is implied to be somewhere physical in which interactions may take place and lay claim to some sort of authenticity.
P.S. Sorry all, I’ve been forgetting to tag these as Weekly Posts.