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)
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.