I've decided to do a mini-study for my Final Project in this class. It will be a rather informal, exploratory study to examine how young voters used Web 2.0 technology (specifically Facebook) to talk politics and get political information in the 2008 Presidential Campaigns.
To begin, I'll do a literature review about young voters and Web 2.0. Then, I will create a questionnaire using both Likert Scale questions and a few open-ended questions. I will send this survey out to my Facebook network (appx. 1,400 people) and cross my fingers for a good response. Obviously, this sample won't be accurate -- but again, this is an exploratory study. Once I receive the results, I will compare the data and look for patterns.
I have a few predictions about the results:
1) Young voters who take in political information from other sources (i.e. TV, newspapers, Online Political Websites) are likely to talk politics and get information from Facebook.
2) Young voters who do not take in political information from other sources are unlikely to use Facebook to talk politics or obtain political information.
3) Young voters are likely to talk politics with those who share their views, rather than those who oppose them.
I haven't written up the questions yet -- so all of these hypothesis and predictions are still up in the air.
We shall see :)
Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments about this idea!
Thank you.
After heated discussion last week, I feel the need to justify my large number of Facebook friends!
As I said in my last post, my number of Facebook friends is largely due to positions I held at West Chester University of Pennsylvania: Orientation Leader, Resident Assistant, V.P. of Student Government, V.P. of my sorority, etc. My job as an Orientation Leader, R.A. and V.P. of SGA (all paid positions) required me to connect and maintain relationships with new students at WCU.
For example, as a Resident Assistant, I managed a floor of first year students. This job included everything from mentoring, enforcing policy, creating programs, counseling and just hanging out. Basically, I had to befriend my residents.
Facebook helped me do my job more effectively and efficiently.
By befriending them on Facebook, I could learn about their hobbies, majors, musical tastes, or how much they partied. This information allowed me to be a better, more informed R.A. Instead of leaving notes on a door that could fly off or be thrown away, a Facebook message was sure to get to them. As confirmed by the Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe article, most college students check their accounts at least once a day.
This same theme was repeated for my other positions at WCU. I needed to be available and connected to new students, and Facebook kept that connection open and available all the time – at the new student’s convenience.
While I was there for them during college, they may be there for me someday.
There are good things and bad things about having a large number of Facebook friends. The bad include privacy issues, depending on how much information you share. In my opinion, there are more perks than drawbacks. To me, these new students are “bridging” social capital -- according to Ellision, Steinfield and Lampe (and Putnam).
“[Bridging social capital] is believed to be better-suited for linking to external assets and for information diffusion” (Pg 1152).
Basically, these “weak-tie” relationships can be beneficial in the long run, whether with a job offer or other important connection. For example, I plan on doing a mini-research project for this class, and my amount of Facebook friends will afford me a greater audience in this exploratory survey study.
So, take that all you Facebook haters :0)
What is a friend?
I find the relationship between language and new technology really interesting. New words are invented: the word blogging still comes up as a misspell in Microsoft Word... webinar, netiquette, and even blook? and old words have changed meaning... like friend.
If you ask most people if they really consider their Facebook friends friends, they would reply: "some of them are, but the rest are just Facebook friends." What is the difference between a real friend and a Facebook friend?
On Page 74, Donath and Boyd talk about the same phenomenon with Friendster, an earlier version of social networking: "Linking to externally unknown people became so common on Friendster that the phrase, 'she's not my friend, she's my Friendster' arose to explain the relationship one has had with a person known only through that site." Here, they talk about the difference between an in-person contact and an online contact.
For Facebook, the lines are greyer. Right now, I have 1,419 Facebook friends. Almost all of them I met in person at some point through undergraduate leadership experiences: Orientation Leader, VP of Student Government, RA, etc. So, my relationships with some of my 'friends' range from meeting them for a few hours to my brother who I've known for 23 years. I would not consider all of my Facebook friends, even the ones I met in person, real friends.
Facebook recently came out with a Friend List Organizer which apparently allows you to organize your friends into groups and mass mail them, but these lists do not appear anywhere on your profile. Currently, privacy settings can't be edited related to these groups-- but many speculate this is the next step.
I'm assuming the features will continued to become more advanced until we can manage our image online much like we do in everyday life. I find Erving Goffman's research about self presentation and "face work" very interesting. Definitely worth discussion as it relates to online social interaction.
Anyway, here is a semi-related interesting link:
When a parent asks a child to be their friend on Facebook
And an interesting video:
A Pastor speaking out about the Facebook friend limit
If you ask most people if they really consider their Facebook friends friends, they would reply: "some of them are, but the rest are just Facebook friends." What is the difference between a real friend and a Facebook friend?
On Page 74, Donath and Boyd talk about the same phenomenon with Friendster, an earlier version of social networking: "Linking to externally unknown people became so common on Friendster that the phrase, 'she's not my friend, she's my Friendster' arose to explain the relationship one has had with a person known only through that site." Here, they talk about the difference between an in-person contact and an online contact.
For Facebook, the lines are greyer. Right now, I have 1,419 Facebook friends. Almost all of them I met in person at some point through undergraduate leadership experiences: Orientation Leader, VP of Student Government, RA, etc. So, my relationships with some of my 'friends' range from meeting them for a few hours to my brother who I've known for 23 years. I would not consider all of my Facebook friends, even the ones I met in person, real friends.
Facebook recently came out with a Friend List Organizer which apparently allows you to organize your friends into groups and mass mail them, but these lists do not appear anywhere on your profile. Currently, privacy settings can't be edited related to these groups-- but many speculate this is the next step.
I'm assuming the features will continued to become more advanced until we can manage our image online much like we do in everyday life. I find Erving Goffman's research about self presentation and "face work" very interesting. Definitely worth discussion as it relates to online social interaction.
Anyway, here is a semi-related interesting link:
When a parent asks a child to be their friend on Facebook
And an interesting video:
A Pastor speaking out about the Facebook friend limit
Oops!
I was so caught up in the project; I forgot to post a blog before class. SO in an attempt to make up for it, I'll post a day-after analysis.
One of my favorite aspects of the CCTE program is the incredible diversity. A great example was obvious in class yesterday... art, gender studies, music, design --- we had all bases covered in our conversation. It's interesting to see how technology impacts all fields in similar and different ways.
To comment on my article choice, I think examining the impact of internet on political dialog and experience is really important, considering our current political and economic situation. The intensity of the 2008 election is presenting me with some questions:
Record voter turnout is expected on November 4th. Chuck and I had a brief conversation about it this morning. Early voting has begun in some states, and NPR reports lines lasting multiple hours ALREADY -- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96019326
It will be interesting to unpack the causes of the high voter turnout. I'm sure a few basics will rise to the top, in no particular order: 1) failing economy 2) closeness of the race -- at one time the candidates were within a few points of each other 3) the historical nature of obama's candidacy (haha I had to edit this, because the first time I wrote "presidency"... amazing) 4) sarah palin -- enough said and 5) candidates' use of new media technologies for advertising, marketing and... BRANDING.
Obviously, I'm most interested in the 5th point. I really want to explore how the candidates' use of web 2.0 internet technologies (i.e. MyBo), text messaging and YouTube did or did not have an impact, specifically on young born-digital voters. In the 2004 election, online fundraising was a significant contributor to both campaigns; however, the money raised online was used for old advertising tactics i.e. direct mailers. In 2008, we are watching candidates use of media and technology in a new, savvy way. Corporate organizations comment on how well managed the Obama brand has been-- even suggesting that other businesses should use Obama as an example! I have a hankerin' all this digital stuff has something to do with it.
Just a non-partisan reminder: John McCain doesn't know how to use e-mail.
One of my favorite aspects of the CCTE program is the incredible diversity. A great example was obvious in class yesterday... art, gender studies, music, design --- we had all bases covered in our conversation. It's interesting to see how technology impacts all fields in similar and different ways.
To comment on my article choice, I think examining the impact of internet on political dialog and experience is really important, considering our current political and economic situation. The intensity of the 2008 election is presenting me with some questions:
Record voter turnout is expected on November 4th. Chuck and I had a brief conversation about it this morning. Early voting has begun in some states, and NPR reports lines lasting multiple hours ALREADY -- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96019326
It will be interesting to unpack the causes of the high voter turnout. I'm sure a few basics will rise to the top, in no particular order: 1) failing economy 2) closeness of the race -- at one time the candidates were within a few points of each other 3) the historical nature of obama's candidacy (haha I had to edit this, because the first time I wrote "presidency"... amazing) 4) sarah palin -- enough said and 5) candidates' use of new media technologies for advertising, marketing and... BRANDING.
Obviously, I'm most interested in the 5th point. I really want to explore how the candidates' use of web 2.0 internet technologies (i.e. MyBo), text messaging and YouTube did or did not have an impact, specifically on young born-digital voters. In the 2004 election, online fundraising was a significant contributor to both campaigns; however, the money raised online was used for old advertising tactics i.e. direct mailers. In 2008, we are watching candidates use of media and technology in a new, savvy way. Corporate organizations comment on how well managed the Obama brand has been-- even suggesting that other businesses should use Obama as an example! I have a hankerin' all this digital stuff has something to do with it.
Just a non-partisan reminder: John McCain doesn't know how to use e-mail.
Final Project Ramblings
Today we were asked to write about our final project musings. Obviously politics and power structures are major themes in my blogs, but I'm having a difficult time narrowing it down. The other question, of course, is to do a mini-study or a literature review. I suppose I need a topic before I can choose. Through some web searches, I found some buzz on "net neutrality"---
A decent overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
This may be a possible topic. I'm also interested in the "Obama Brand" -- essentially, branding in political campaigns. It might be interesting to examine the internet impact of the "Obama Brand" -- especially on young media-literate voters.
A short take on the Obama Brand:
The Atlantic article referenced in the video:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance
So, classmates... let me know which you think would be more interesting! Thanks :0)
A decent overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
This may be a possible topic. I'm also interested in the "Obama Brand" -- essentially, branding in political campaigns. It might be interesting to examine the internet impact of the "Obama Brand" -- especially on young media-literate voters.
A short take on the Obama Brand:
The Atlantic article referenced in the video:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/obama-finance
So, classmates... let me know which you think would be more interesting! Thanks :0)
Fear Influences
"New technological advancements appear to go through times of question, apprehension, and suspicion as societies test the boundaries of what the new technology can actually accomplish" - Leander & McKim
I think I am dealing with the questions and skepticism about what effect technology will have on the future. Thematically, I'm skeptical about technology, but moreover, I'm skeptical about the intentions of people who are making a profit from technology. Technology should be used for the greater good, but is it always? I'm worried that we may rush into things to make a profit without examining the possible outcomes. I see a similar theme in the pharmaceutical drug industry. Everyone wants to rush to get new drugs on the market, sometimes without realizing how important it is to understand exactly what the drugs do and don't do for us. Sometimes I wish I could just blindly embrace technology and globalization without being plagued by all of these "what if's"... Again, we have tough questions to examine in our field.
community: moving from main street to the net?
I have always been fascinated by communities. Growing up, I was a part of many: school, church, neighborhood, sports teams, musical organizations, my family etc. All of these communities were fundamentally fueled by in-person interpersonal interaction. As I grew up, I observed and became a part of a different kind of community: a virtual one. Here, I could find like-minded people too. I could join a chat room community about raising horses, or a Backstreet Boys fan club... ok... I really was in one of those...
The point being, I was able to connect with people through a new, alternative medium. Now in college, I can take classes completely online or chat about politics with people from all over the world. The advent of MUD's is bringing people together in new worlds. I see in-person communities migrating and morphing into online communities. My question is, do you think that that one will consume the other? Will in-person communities dwindle until almost all community interaction is electronic or digital? If so, is this a good or bad thing?
A quote from the Sherry Turkle text:
"As more people spend more time in these virtual spaces, some go so far as to challenges the idea of giving any priority to RL (Real Life) at all."
****
Angela Thomas argues in "Digital Literacies of the Cybergirl" that girls are using cyberspace to satisfy their desires for a different body or personality. My question is: Is this a good thing? I'm reminded of our WallE discussion, where humans sit in chairs, fed through tubes and clicking to interact with everyone around them. This never ending quest to satisfy desires: for money, food, companionship has WallE humans immobilized. It seems like they are losing much of what it means to be human.
Or are they?
"Our new technology enmeshed relationships oblige us to ask to what extend we ourselves have become cyborgs, transgressive mixtures of biology, technology and code. The traditional distance between people and machines has become harder to maintain."
This weeks reading left me with more questions than answers. I guess that's the point?
The point being, I was able to connect with people through a new, alternative medium. Now in college, I can take classes completely online or chat about politics with people from all over the world. The advent of MUD's is bringing people together in new worlds. I see in-person communities migrating and morphing into online communities. My question is, do you think that that one will consume the other? Will in-person communities dwindle until almost all community interaction is electronic or digital? If so, is this a good or bad thing?
A quote from the Sherry Turkle text:
"As more people spend more time in these virtual spaces, some go so far as to challenges the idea of giving any priority to RL (Real Life) at all."
****
Angela Thomas argues in "Digital Literacies of the Cybergirl" that girls are using cyberspace to satisfy their desires for a different body or personality. My question is: Is this a good thing? I'm reminded of our WallE discussion, where humans sit in chairs, fed through tubes and clicking to interact with everyone around them. This never ending quest to satisfy desires: for money, food, companionship has WallE humans immobilized. It seems like they are losing much of what it means to be human.
Or are they?
"Our new technology enmeshed relationships oblige us to ask to what extend we ourselves have become cyborgs, transgressive mixtures of biology, technology and code. The traditional distance between people and machines has become harder to maintain."
This weeks reading left me with more questions than answers. I guess that's the point?
I met a best friend on MySpace and a boyfriend on Match.com ... no... REALLY!
The readings for this week hit very close to home. Because I am typing online in a twisted form of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), I magically feel connected to all of my devoted readers, and thus am able to emotionally open up more than normal. Ahem. Here goes.
ABOUT THE BEST FRIEND...
Junior year of high school, I decided to join a web-based community called MySpace. In my first few weeks, I was contacted by a stranger (we'll call him John) through a friendly MySpace message. I think it said something like "Hey! I think you're cute." What started off as a quasi-physical attraction turned into a very deep friendship. Eventually, communication moved from MySpace to IM to e-mail to the phone. We talked about our families, lives, college, transitions, stress and all of the things that best friends talk about. By the time I was a junior in college, John was really my best friend in the world, ever. We spoke on the phone daily. Up to this point (5 years?) we never met in person. In an act of insanity or courage, John decided to take a trip from Queens, NY to visit me in West Chester, PA. This meeting was a complete disaster. We both had different expectations, different thoughts about what the other would be like and ultimately, these differences manifested in a really awkward couple days.
According to Baym and Walther, that situation is painfully predictable. As a sender, I was probably projecting an idealized image of myself through the Internet and phone communication. As a receiver, I was taking in an idealized image of John through our CMC and phone interaction. This all happened over YEARS, so the personality and physicality of our mental versions of the other became significant parts of both of our lives. Now, we had to settle the difference between the idealized and the real images of the other.
I know, I know, the suspense is killing you. WHAT ARE JOHN AND I DOING TODAY? Well, we are still friends. I moved to NYC to go to school at Columbia, so we have more time to enjoy FtF communication. We still have a lot of work ahead resolving the expectations and idealized images we created through CMC, but we are positive about the future.
ON TO THE BOYFRIEND...
I decided to take another stab at CMC and joined Match.com. Most of my friends thought I was insane for doing this, but they think I'm weird normally... so I wasn't fazed. Anyway, I signed up and decided to use what I learned from my now-strained relationship with John to make better communication choices online. Through Match.com I met my current boyfriend, Collin. I took a bit of a different approach, only exchanging a couple e-mails, moving to video chat, and after a few weeks meeting in person. This worked out incredibly well (obviously), and is proof that CMC used responsibly can have wonderful outcomes.
I think this experience speaks to the need to be educated about new media and possible consequences. Thank goodness John wasn't an online predator or someone trying to hurt me. In the five years we communicated before meeting, he obtained untold amounts of personal information about me. When I started MySpace in high school, I had no online education whatsoever. This ties nicely into the readings about Second Life.
The creators are facilitating a virtual world, modeled after the real world, yet omitting institutions that are essential to our existence in the real world. For example, they created a currency and regulations for that currency, seems right. Where is the rest of the government? Are these people anarchists?! There are no laws, no judicial system, no punishment. I guess they are leaving it up to the "states" or separate islands to construct their own rules? I don't think this is enough. People are being injured, killed, and raped in online worlds. In the real world, we know this is wrong. So in virtual worlds, why aren't there similar punishments? At some point, someone is going to have to take responsibility for crime, regulation, and keeping avatars and users alike safe: physically AND emotionally. Maybe the creators are just waiting for governments to fork over the cash to buy and island and fight crime? Who knows...
In conclusion, please feel free to talk to me about this at any time. I don't feel awkward about it at all - so if you have questions, or would just like someone to commiserate with about your failed or flourishing online relationship / friendship, I'm here. I'm here for you. Like a best friend you only know through this computer-mediated blog. But you know me oh-so well now. Wow, I feel so connected to you right now:: HYPERPERSONALLY CONNECTED!
And I guess there's always class. See you all there :o)
ABOUT THE BEST FRIEND...
Junior year of high school, I decided to join a web-based community called MySpace. In my first few weeks, I was contacted by a stranger (we'll call him John) through a friendly MySpace message. I think it said something like "Hey! I think you're cute." What started off as a quasi-physical attraction turned into a very deep friendship. Eventually, communication moved from MySpace to IM to e-mail to the phone. We talked about our families, lives, college, transitions, stress and all of the things that best friends talk about. By the time I was a junior in college, John was really my best friend in the world, ever. We spoke on the phone daily. Up to this point (5 years?) we never met in person. In an act of insanity or courage, John decided to take a trip from Queens, NY to visit me in West Chester, PA. This meeting was a complete disaster. We both had different expectations, different thoughts about what the other would be like and ultimately, these differences manifested in a really awkward couple days.
According to Baym and Walther, that situation is painfully predictable. As a sender, I was probably projecting an idealized image of myself through the Internet and phone communication. As a receiver, I was taking in an idealized image of John through our CMC and phone interaction. This all happened over YEARS, so the personality and physicality of our mental versions of the other became significant parts of both of our lives. Now, we had to settle the difference between the idealized and the real images of the other.
I know, I know, the suspense is killing you. WHAT ARE JOHN AND I DOING TODAY? Well, we are still friends. I moved to NYC to go to school at Columbia, so we have more time to enjoy FtF communication. We still have a lot of work ahead resolving the expectations and idealized images we created through CMC, but we are positive about the future.
ON TO THE BOYFRIEND...
I decided to take another stab at CMC and joined Match.com. Most of my friends thought I was insane for doing this, but they think I'm weird normally... so I wasn't fazed. Anyway, I signed up and decided to use what I learned from my now-strained relationship with John to make better communication choices online. Through Match.com I met my current boyfriend, Collin. I took a bit of a different approach, only exchanging a couple e-mails, moving to video chat, and after a few weeks meeting in person. This worked out incredibly well (obviously), and is proof that CMC used responsibly can have wonderful outcomes.
I think this experience speaks to the need to be educated about new media and possible consequences. Thank goodness John wasn't an online predator or someone trying to hurt me. In the five years we communicated before meeting, he obtained untold amounts of personal information about me. When I started MySpace in high school, I had no online education whatsoever. This ties nicely into the readings about Second Life.
The creators are facilitating a virtual world, modeled after the real world, yet omitting institutions that are essential to our existence in the real world. For example, they created a currency and regulations for that currency, seems right. Where is the rest of the government? Are these people anarchists?! There are no laws, no judicial system, no punishment. I guess they are leaving it up to the "states" or separate islands to construct their own rules? I don't think this is enough. People are being injured, killed, and raped in online worlds. In the real world, we know this is wrong. So in virtual worlds, why aren't there similar punishments? At some point, someone is going to have to take responsibility for crime, regulation, and keeping avatars and users alike safe: physically AND emotionally. Maybe the creators are just waiting for governments to fork over the cash to buy and island and fight crime? Who knows...
In conclusion, please feel free to talk to me about this at any time. I don't feel awkward about it at all - so if you have questions, or would just like someone to commiserate with about your failed or flourishing online relationship / friendship, I'm here. I'm here for you. Like a best friend you only know through this computer-mediated blog. But you know me oh-so well now. Wow, I feel so connected to you right now:: HYPERPERSONALLY CONNECTED!
And I guess there's always class. See you all there :o)
Do the ends justify the means?
Response to:
Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age
E. Dyson, G. Gilder, G. Keyworth, & A. Toffler
The authors argue a traditional conservative economic perspective: government should get out of the way of innovative businesses. It is not surprising to learn the authors are members of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a well known conservative organization with huge corporate support. The authors believe deregulation will allow our country to remain on the cusp of the digital revolution. Any regulation is merely slowing the inevitable process down, or worse, applying old solutions to new problems. In essence, "the reality is that a Third Wave government will be vastly smaller (perhaps by 50% or more) than the current one--this is an inevitable implication of the transition from the centralized power structures of the industrial age to the dispersed, decentralized institutions of the Third."
Assuming governments do deregulate and subscribe to Dyson et al.'s philosophy, they are giving up control and power to another source. The authors argue that this power will be given to 'the people.' Well, not quite. The power will be given to a select group of people, namely leaders of newly-globalized multinational, multi million dollar corporations.
Personally, the authors' argument would sound logical (even ideal) if I was working for an influential software development company or already making over 6-figures a year. I'm not. This argument is Machiavellian, arguing that the ends justify the means. It completely ignores the plethora of negative implications to run-rampant corporations. Unfair wages for workers, exploitation, destroying the planet, etc. etc. -- you know I could go on! Usually conservatives are known for the signature 'trickle down economics' theory, but in this article the people who are implied to receive the 'trickle' are barely mentioned.
Oh wait, maybe once... "Americans still celebrate individuality over conformity, reward achievement over consensus, and militantly protect the right to be different." How militant! The irony is that the authors' proposed system does not allow for creativity at all; It encourages monopoly!
After a week of chewing on the readings, I'm left with many questions. It seems complete deregulation would be insane, and allow horrible horrible consequences. Conversely, total regulation would stifle creativity, personal freedom and provide its own set of problems. It seems the answer is somewhere in the middle.
One theme throughout the readings is change. Some believe this change is just a regurgitation of historical trends. Others believe it's the manifestation of the 'information age'. Either way, the prevalence of technology is challenging us with new questions, and it will be our generation's responsibility to search for answers.
Cyberspace and the American Dream: A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age
E. Dyson, G. Gilder, G. Keyworth, & A. Toffler
The authors argue a traditional conservative economic perspective: government should get out of the way of innovative businesses. It is not surprising to learn the authors are members of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a well known conservative organization with huge corporate support. The authors believe deregulation will allow our country to remain on the cusp of the digital revolution. Any regulation is merely slowing the inevitable process down, or worse, applying old solutions to new problems. In essence, "the reality is that a Third Wave government will be vastly smaller (perhaps by 50% or more) than the current one--this is an inevitable implication of the transition from the centralized power structures of the industrial age to the dispersed, decentralized institutions of the Third."
Assuming governments do deregulate and subscribe to Dyson et al.'s philosophy, they are giving up control and power to another source. The authors argue that this power will be given to 'the people.' Well, not quite. The power will be given to a select group of people, namely leaders of newly-globalized multinational, multi million dollar corporations.
Personally, the authors' argument would sound logical (even ideal) if I was working for an influential software development company or already making over 6-figures a year. I'm not. This argument is Machiavellian, arguing that the ends justify the means. It completely ignores the plethora of negative implications to run-rampant corporations. Unfair wages for workers, exploitation, destroying the planet, etc. etc. -- you know I could go on! Usually conservatives are known for the signature 'trickle down economics' theory, but in this article the people who are implied to receive the 'trickle' are barely mentioned.
Oh wait, maybe once... "Americans still celebrate individuality over conformity, reward achievement over consensus, and militantly protect the right to be different." How militant! The irony is that the authors' proposed system does not allow for creativity at all; It encourages monopoly!
After a week of chewing on the readings, I'm left with many questions. It seems complete deregulation would be insane, and allow horrible horrible consequences. Conversely, total regulation would stifle creativity, personal freedom and provide its own set of problems. It seems the answer is somewhere in the middle.
One theme throughout the readings is change. Some believe this change is just a regurgitation of historical trends. Others believe it's the manifestation of the 'information age'. Either way, the prevalence of technology is challenging us with new questions, and it will be our generation's responsibility to search for answers.
potential has the potential to be scary
technology is a dichotomy. each new step forward may turn into two steps back. what is good for one group may be an encumbrance to another. pinch & bijker agree, "different social groups have radically different interpretations of one technological artifact" (1987). in this text, p&b use the example of a bicycle to elucidate the social construction of facts and artifacts. i have a problem with the example; how controversial can a bicycle really be? women might show off their ankle-long petticoats when mounting the bike... OH NO! SIN SIN SIN! (ok ok...i know, it was 1987...and clearly technology and culture are BFF's... taken out of context blah blah)
let's see if this concept holds up to a modern, quickly emerging and HIGHLY controversial field: biotechnology- the ultimate example of marrying science and technology. (would p&b be proud?)
genetic engineering may be the key to new medicines, better food and a better global quality of life. it also holds insane possibility when put in the hands of average citizens. in our biotech future, freeman dyson predicts "the domestication of biotechnology will dominate our lives during the next fifty years at least as much as the domestication of computers has dominated our lives during the previous fifty years" (2007). kids will be creating new species of house pets while parents are choosing the eye and hair color of their kids. am i the only one who finds this insanely frightening?
he talks about "Open Source biology" - genetic alteration technology available to anyone with the "skill and imagination" to use it. he champions a sickeningly idealistic mantra, where biotechnology remedies global hunger, poverty and magically creates world peace. UNLIKELY. multinational corporations control the newly globalized world order. a hyper-free market foreshadows a grimly framed future, one where the elites (k. marx's bourgeoisie?) manipulate and market biotechnology for obscene profits. imagine biotechnology sold like computers or nike sneakers. with control of new technological gold, active self-preservation is inevitable. maybe mr. CEO will prefer uber-sophisticated machines to human workers, completely annihilating the working class. it would be nice not to worry about budgeting for health benefits, pensions, or all of those irritating human expenses. now, i did not intend a harangue, but this example takes p&b's discussion to a whole new level.
how does technological determinism fit in?
i'm so glad you asked! the marx & smith text describes "hard determinism" as "advancing technology has a steadily growing, well-nigh irresistible power to determine the course of events" (1994). we see why the multinationals would like this, eh? if globalization and technology are 'irresistible' and inevitable in the mind of consumers, the negative impact (i.e. climate change, global warming, increasing disparity between classes, objectification of workers and sweatshop labor) is completely disregarded. moreover, if technology has a "life of its own," who is responsible for this damage? no easy answers here.
how does this message disseminate?
corporations control media.
p&b admit that the "hard determinism" point of view is the most pervasive in modern media, stating "the narrative structure is based on the stock before-and-after model." plenty of research shows how media subtly shapes our world view and ultimately, tells us what and how to think about the world around us. (take psychology of media to learn more!) so the more media adopts this model, the more we see globalization as organic, rationalizing the disastrous consequences. Oh yeah, and the rich keep getting richer. But that's just how the world turns, right?
maybe k. marx was on to something...
works referenced:
leo marx & merrit roe smith: does technology drive history? introduction. 1994.
trevor pinch & wiebe bijker: the social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. 1987.
freeman dyson: our biotech future. insane person press: 2007. kidding... the new york review of books.
let's see if this concept holds up to a modern, quickly emerging and HIGHLY controversial field: biotechnology- the ultimate example of marrying science and technology. (would p&b be proud?)
genetic engineering may be the key to new medicines, better food and a better global quality of life. it also holds insane possibility when put in the hands of average citizens. in our biotech future, freeman dyson predicts "the domestication of biotechnology will dominate our lives during the next fifty years at least as much as the domestication of computers has dominated our lives during the previous fifty years" (2007). kids will be creating new species of house pets while parents are choosing the eye and hair color of their kids. am i the only one who finds this insanely frightening?
he talks about "Open Source biology" - genetic alteration technology available to anyone with the "skill and imagination" to use it. he champions a sickeningly idealistic mantra, where biotechnology remedies global hunger, poverty and magically creates world peace. UNLIKELY. multinational corporations control the newly globalized world order. a hyper-free market foreshadows a grimly framed future, one where the elites (k. marx's bourgeoisie?) manipulate and market biotechnology for obscene profits. imagine biotechnology sold like computers or nike sneakers. with control of new technological gold, active self-preservation is inevitable. maybe mr. CEO will prefer uber-sophisticated machines to human workers, completely annihilating the working class. it would be nice not to worry about budgeting for health benefits, pensions, or all of those irritating human expenses. now, i did not intend a harangue, but this example takes p&b's discussion to a whole new level.
how does technological determinism fit in?
i'm so glad you asked! the marx & smith text describes "hard determinism" as "advancing technology has a steadily growing, well-nigh irresistible power to determine the course of events" (1994). we see why the multinationals would like this, eh? if globalization and technology are 'irresistible' and inevitable in the mind of consumers, the negative impact (i.e. climate change, global warming, increasing disparity between classes, objectification of workers and sweatshop labor) is completely disregarded. moreover, if technology has a "life of its own," who is responsible for this damage? no easy answers here.
how does this message disseminate?
corporations control media.
p&b admit that the "hard determinism" point of view is the most pervasive in modern media, stating "the narrative structure is based on the stock before-and-after model." plenty of research shows how media subtly shapes our world view and ultimately, tells us what and how to think about the world around us. (take psychology of media to learn more!) so the more media adopts this model, the more we see globalization as organic, rationalizing the disastrous consequences. Oh yeah, and the rich keep getting richer. But that's just how the world turns, right?
maybe k. marx was on to something...
works referenced:
leo marx & merrit roe smith: does technology drive history? introduction. 1994.
trevor pinch & wiebe bijker: the social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. 1987.
freeman dyson: our biotech future. insane person press: 2007. kidding... the new york review of books.