Is the cellphone a mundane non “technology” among the elite?: From Huffington Post to Rupaul’s Drag Race
When does something stop being a “technology”? The word technology is a loaded term that is full of futuristic newness— the information age, the network society, the post-industrial era—-all the hopes and fears of “modernity.” These thoughts swirled in my mind when my friend forwarded me Karen’s Leland’s column from The Huffington Post, Does Friendship Trump Technology?
In the article, she talks about how utility technicians accidentally cut the internet line to her house just as she was trying to get online to map directions to a meeting. She gets in her car and starts considering several options to get to an internet connection and then realizes that the quickest way to find directions was to actually use her cellphone to call her friend, who could then look up the direction online from her house. With her friend’s help, Leland gets to the meeting place early enough to even get a cup of coffee. Leland’s point is that friendship is more important than technology because in the end it was her friend who helped her, not the internet: “Technology is great, but a girl’s got to have friends.”
When I read this, i thought that it didn’t make any sense. Her friend fulfilled her role as a good “friend” through the use of technology. Her friend answered the phone call at an inconvienient hour, but nevertheless did so because Leland used her cellphone to wake up her good “friend.
Essentially Leland’s whole entire story could not have taken place without technology tools. To even get to her meeting, Leland is driving in a car that has an engine powered by an internal computer. To even reach her friend, Leland has to use the cellphone. For her friend to even process images, she has to find her glasses. For her friend to even give direction, she has to turn on her computer to get to mapquest (btw tell your girlfriend to use google maps - she can tell you traffic patterns and give you street view).
We can even look at it in another way - the stoplights that are programmed to direct the traffic that Leland is driving in, the coffee machine that makes her coffee, the cellphone towers that enables the calls through the electro-magnetic spectrum, the internet router her friend uses to get online - on and on. Anything and everything can be technological. The entire story is only possible with objects that create the space for the rich interaction that she has described.
Leland’s article points to one common way that technology is defined, as a new system or set of practices that are antithetical to human interaction, alienating people from friendship, love, and human touch. Technology (for Leland the unavailable internet) is seen as the anti-connector - but the ironic part is that Leland uses technology to connect to her friend who could then connects online to connect her to the directions she needed to connect to her meeting.
Technology and human interaction are not mutually exclusive - we use tools to get things done. What if the article was titled, Does Friendship Trump Tools? Or Does Friendship Trump Cars? Or Does Friendship Trump Pencils? It just sounds ludicrous because it points to the illogical boundaries on what we define as “technological.”
Leland’s point that technology does not trump friendship also reveals an underlying fear that technology would even be in a place to trump friendship. Her statement is an affirmation that her friend was there for her when her technology failed her. Is this a new way of defining friendship? Who do we turn to when our technologies fail us in critical moments?
What I think is interesting in this article, is that it actually points to a discursive cultural change in the way that elites or let’s middle- to upper-class people think about cellphones - that it has become so integrated into their lives that it’s taken for granted now as a mundane tool - just like a car or pencil or eyeglasses. NOW That’s interesting!
So at what point is an object not a “technology” and just a mundane object? Well one way is to see how it is incorporated it into discourse. In this article, the discourse of the cellphone is dis-associated from “technology” because it referred to as a non-technology.
Another way is to notice how images of technology are incorporated into our visual culture. Look at the way visual culture in music videos and movies reenact scenes of everyday life. Do you notice when your favorite TV shows incorporates a pencil into the story - no because it is just a mundane object (unless the specific topic is about the pencil). For example, movies and music videos often show characters using cellphones as part of the interaction. I know that from a more mainstream cultural studies point of view this is usually interpreted as the selling of “coolness” - the selling of the need to consume a cellphone as part of a modern consumer. ok - point taken and yes I agree.
However, another way to think about it is that many of the interactions cannot take place without the cellphone - and that speaks to the role of this technology as an everyday object that is assumed to be part of interaction - as if only with the cellphone such interaction could be accomplished. It’s hard to imagine how Leland could’ve reached her friend from her car without the cellphone unless she did it telepathically.
The first time I actually thought that the cellphone may be a mundane technology for Americans or Westerners or middle- to upper-class users was when I was watching Rupaul’s Drag Race (part 6 episode 6) where the drag queens had to compete for the best impersonation of a female executive.
When the queens took to the runway, each of them had a different outfit with various tools to support their look - such as a briefcase of files or glasses or purse. 3 out of the 4 contestants drag queens started their “Executive Realness” impersonation with a cellphone! They pretended to be on an important business call. The one who didn’t use the cellphone chose a briefcase as the stand in for “executiveness.” (oh and just in case you are curious, Phoebe, middle, was “excutive fabulousness.” A judge said that Rebecca Glasscock, far left, looked like “Donald’s Trump next ex-wife.”)
So what’s the connection between Leland’s Huffington Post article and Rupaul’s Drag Race? The cellphone is mundane! From Leland’s post to Rupual’s drag queens - it’s just a part of the everyday - and who better than drag queens to exaggerate the everyday - the queens of impersonations are best at pulling out the mundane ways we re-enact power in a gendered way.
Ok Tricia so why is it so important to understand that the cellphone could now be considered mundane? In terms of my research with new technology users, it just reminds me how careful I need to be in what kind of assumptions I bring to my research, such as my research questions, analysis and conclusions. I live in a country where a cellphone may mean one thing - which I am saying may have become a mundane everyday tool - but I do research in other countries where the cell means an entirely different thing - a non-mundane tool.
Even with technologies that are not mundane - the researcher still needs to be aware of what that the tool means to her/him - but my point is that one has to work even harder to be self-reflective about the taken for granted ideas that we bring to our fieldsites or to the design process with technology that have become ordinarialized (yes I made that word up).
I think one of the consequences of technologies becoming everyday, is that it’s hard to think about its usage in a context entirely different from our own experience. That then leads to certain assumptions and hope about the role of the technology. I find that this is most problematic in technology projects that are tried in “developing” areas of the world. You have all these “first world” or Western funded NGO’s going into these impoverished regions “bringing” or “introducing” technology with the hopes that it will jump-start economic development in the region. I find myself cringing at these projects because one, there is already lot of criticism over the failure of technology-based development projects, but also because these projects are run by people who come from the US or Europe - where technology is used in a very socially and culturally specific context. What happens then is that these people think, “well the internet is helpful for me, so it will be helpful for others who won’t have it. Life for these people will be better with internet access.” I don’t dispute that people have more choices with access to more information, but access to information is sooo socially contexual that how information is then used, processed, fulfilled, interpreted, recycled, managed and mashed - is specific to each region/community/country and I it is too often that this is not considered.
Instead, technology for development projects tend to take a linear approach where the goal is to bring the community “up” and out of poverty. There are assumptions that quality of life is a uni-directional march towards modernity and the tools that come with it.
One way to get out of this trap is that I think researchers of technology use need to spend more time understanding the mundane among new users. This takes time. This it one of the roles of ethnography. The mundane is the everyday - the take for granted. If we can better understand the everyday, then we can better understand the role and meaning of new technologies, which then leads to the greater possibility of more relevant designs for new users in new-to-us markets.
Interrogating the “Developing” vs “Developed” Country dichotomy: Assumptions, technologies, and Americanism - VOTE FOR OPTION B!
When speaking with others about my work, I do not use the word “developing” as a label for the countries I work in - China and Mexico (or India, where I was last year).
But it’s difficult when everyone else insists on calling all places outside of the US and Europe “developing” (or even under-developed).
Who has the power to define when a country is “developing” or developed”? What do we mean by development?
Is a country labeled “developing” if it is considered to be at poverty level according to the UN Human Poverty Index or World Bank poverty index? Just because a country has poor people does not mean the people are in poverty or an impoverished group. (I will write a separate post about this statement later)
Labeling a country developing or developed is a dichotomy that places the West (Europe, US, sometimes Japan, Canda and Australia) to be the First World—models for all aspiring nation-states. And then everywhere else outside of the “developed world” are black holes of underdevelopment or regions in the process of developing into a “First World” nation. This dichotomy assumes a linear trajectory with all “non-developed” or “developing” nations aiming to become more “developed.”
The word is a politically correct post-colonial stand-in for concepts around civilizing the “other,” the “savages”, the “indians.”
- So what are developing countries developing into? Is a country considered developed when it starts acting like other “First World” nations? Starts moving all its citizens into wage-labor? Pushes for people to buy on credit? Pushing countries to participate in global capitalism?
- Is a “developed” country one that looks like the United States? When it start exploiting neighboring countries or engages them in neo-liberal agreements that clearly provide more benefit to the “developed” nation and in the long run actually harms the ‘developing” nation?
So I work in Mexico - let’s use this as an example.
- Would Mexico, an OECD and NAFTA, partner become more “developed” if it transitioned from being an export economy to an import economy?
- Would it be more “developed” if it learned how to out-source it’s economic activities to its neighbors?
- Would Mexico be developed if it learned how to jail 40% of a historically discriminated group? (US has the highest incarceration rate in the world! 2 million in prison, 4.9 million under supervision, 40% of black males at any given time in the US are in jail).
- Would Mexico be developed if they legalized the sale of hand guns?
- Would Mexico be developed if they started unstabilizing neighboring economies, and then proceed to on one hand offer lots of low-wage labor jobs that other Mexicans won’t perform and then on the other hand tell neighboring countries that it is illegal to enter Mexico to take these jobs?
- Would Mexico be developed if it copied the US’s Patriot Act and spied on a group of citizens without due process?
I ask these questions to point out the shaky definition of “developed.” In comparing the US and Mexico, the US in many ways is more progressive than Mexico, but in many other ways Mexico is way more progressive and forward thinking than the US. So we should question what we mean by “developed” and ask if that has affected our ideas about American exceptionalism.
Can we find an alternative from “developing”? Certainly a general label with sweeping assumptions of Western superiority does not work.
Here are some alternatives that I have seen being used elsewhere. I am not a fan of them.
Marginalized
I don’t like the world marginalized because many of times Western nations have created the very situation of marginalization in many of these countries. We complain X country is marginalized, but we don’t take responsibility for how our policies may have marginalized them in the first place! When I hear this term being applied to Africa I think of two old ladies chatting and saying, ” oh dear - those Africans are so marginalized from us, let’s donate money to the Help Rwanda with Water Fund for Every HIV Maleria Baby.”
Also there is too much power for the signifier to deem the other as marginalized - which is practically the same as using the word “alienated.” How does it sound if I were to say, “India is an alienated country?” Alienated from what and by who? No. So out with “marginalized.”
Emerging
So what are these countries emerging from? Who are they emerging to? It sounds like we—the West—JUST noticed and discovered these “emerging” regions. It’s as if these countries were laying dormant and all of sudden they are growing! building! working! emerging! It also has too much of a capitalistic overtone that treats people like consumers - the “emerging markets” theme. When I hear emerging, I imagine a circle, where the US is in the middle and it sees the whole world beyond its circle and then choses to deem areas that are “emerging.” Then it sets off on a ship and says I will talk to these people in these “emerging areas.” (and then I will take their things! ahhh) Well hey - that’s what the Europeans did back then but they had God on their side. Now we have things - lots of things - instead of taking resources we “help” them turn their resources into commodities to “help” these “emerging” regions come out of poverty. AHHH so no to emerging!
First World, Second World?
by now this should sound obviously wrong! hello POWER problems? who has the power to define who is in First place - sounds like rigged game to me. so definitely a NO!
_________________________________
OPTION B! So here are a few words that I am using as an alternative for now (as suggested by the picture in this post).
transitioning or transforming
These two words connote change and dynamism! like yah things are moving! These words paint a more circular, holistic and cyclical image than the linear, 1-D images I think of when I hear marginalized or emerging.
Transitioning is already used quite often to refer to the Chinese economy - a quasi socialist-capitalist market, hence a transitioning economy.
Transforming and transitioning are both words that could leave the power in the hands of the people and the outsider. So a region can be transforming to us (the outsider), but also transforming to the villagers in everyday life. For example, a village could be transitioning from one type of economic model to another, and it could just as well at the same time be under economic, social or cultural transition to the villagers themselves.
I also like these terms because it takes a more relative approach to regions - so that a so called “developed” area could contain several regions that are undergoing a lot of transformation. Or a “developed” country could be relatively stable and not experiencing a lot of transitions. It allows us to look at countries like China with more precise terms - where one province could be experiencing a lot of economic transitioning while another is experiencing more social transitioning. Or in Mexico we could say some states are undergoing a lot of political transformation while other states are less politically active.
Under-served
I also use the term under-served in the context that WE - I - AMERICA - have literally under-served a group. Therefore, when I work in the projects of the South Bronx I call it an under-served area because it has been under-served by the city, the state of NYC and etc. I refer to the rural areas of Oaxaca where I work as under-served because in some areas, such as education, have been under-served by the state government, the federal government, corporations and etc.
Und Less or More Evenly Developed
I also use the term “developed” often of time just because I know if I don’t, it causes all this confusion and then I have to get into a loooong conversation on what I don’t like the word “developing? One comprise I offer is to think of development more relativistically. So in terms of income distribution, I feel comfortable saying that the US is more evenly developed and Mexico is less evenly developed. In terms of consumption, the US is less evenly developed and Figi is more evenly developed.
Another good stand in for development is distribution. So we could say income is more evenly distributed in the US and less evenly distributed in Mexico.
By thinking of development relativistically and variably, it opens the possibility a country to be more or less developed/distributed depending on the topic. It also highlights that while a country is more evenly developed, it could become less evenly developed. It introduces a notion of temporality and change. So while the US may be one of the most evenly developed for income distribution, it become less evenly developed if the middle-class slowly disappears.
I would love to find out if you have any ideas of other words!
___________________________________________
So what is at stake in defining a region as developing or as something else?
Why it is such a big deal to me? What’s at stake for me are my analyses, my ideas, and my research conclusions. The way a researcher sees, frames or defines a country or region, affects the analysis that comes out of the investigation. For this reason, it is critical for researchers who work with global issues to be self-reflective of how they label a country.
If you think a group of people LACK something, then your research will only see what they lack and not what they have. And this could color the researcher’s proposals for policy or program proposals for a region. What I’m trying to argue is that the term “developing” implies the notion that a group is lacking information, knowledge, resources and etc. It implies that developing areas need to be fixed. I refuse to use the term “developing” on any of my groups because I just don’t see them in that way!
The label of “developing” contains a whole lot of assumptions about modernity, capitalism and power. When a researcher goes into a region to study power relations and then proceeds to label the region as developing, then the analysis runs the danger of reifying the very power imbalance that is being studied in the first place. And this happens quite often and new academic fields are born out of “development” minded research and new projects are born out of “development” frameworks.
For example, many “development-based” projects have emerged out of development minded research that aim to economically “develop” a country. A field that seems close to the work I do is Information Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D). I have an inherent discomfort with the entire field of ICT4D. As a young field, it is still developing its theories and models. But at the end of the day, there is an assumption that technology does good - technology is for “development.” (will write more posts later on this faulty assumption)
Well anyone in or going into ICT4D should read William Easterly’s The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (thanks David Jacobs for bringing this to my attention!). Easterly carefully documents how World Bank or UN projects over time have actually worked to under-develop a region. My counter to the ICT4D world is that it needs to have a sister field if they want to legitimize their normative field - called ICT4UD - which stands for Information Communication Technology for Under-Development. This field would look at all the ways technology has under-developed a region. And this field would avoid showing repetitive pictures of 30 impoverished Pakistani or South African kids around one laptop. please - no more.
At the end of the day, as my colleague Jesus says, these are all different for referring to those who are different from yourself. It’s important to be aware of the assumptions and connotations that these terms bring with them.
my friend Donna also tells me that Bolivian sociologist, Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui, says that the new Bolivian constitution rejects the inclusion of the words “development” or “growth” as they are loaded terms associated with international agencies coming in to “change” Bolivia. Rather, the want want sustainability, distribution, reciprocity and cooperation as they were used by Bolivians traditionally.
So I say Vote for OPTION B!
Suggested Readings:
Easterly W. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin Press; 2006:436.
Redclift MR. Sustainable development (1987-2005) – an oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development. 2005:65-84.
New Product: Microsoft Mischief, an interactive student/teacher teaching tool for the classroom
The new Microsoft Mischief seems like an ingenious extension of powerpoint! I would love to see this technology being used in the classroom.
This product is being marketed as a tool for teachers in less unevenly developed countries.
One of the things that came to my mind was that other than the basic tools needed (computer, projector, stable electricity for at least 1 hour), do classrooms need to have desks/tables that are smooth enough for the wifi mouse? Many of the classrooms that I’ve seen in under-served areas don’t even have a desks with a smooth surface. The picture on the left is taken from a school that I visited in Wuhan, China. It’s a school for children of migrant workers. Many of the desks were mottled with holes and missing pieces of wood. So I wonder how smooth a desk surface needs to be for mice to work on it? Or can this be easily remedied with a smooth binder as a surface area?
Regardless, this is a totally awesome tool and I can imagine it being useful in classrooms all around the world regardless of the income-level of the school or region. And I like that this tool was built for a classroom with just one computer.
I don’t always think that more computers = more learning. One of the things that I’ve noticed in classrooms where each student has their own computer is that the computer can come between the student and the teacher. And if teachers want to control or monitor what their students are doing while they are teaching, they either have to walk around and look their students’ screens or use a remote screen where they can see every students’ screen. But by doing this, it interrupts what they are teaching.
Well I can’t wait to hear from teachers what they think of this tool.
Teachers who want to try this out should register on Microsoft Connect.
The developers recommend that teachers buy this mouse: Frisby Model #: M5096G 2.4 GHz Mouse, costs around $10.
There will soon be a site where teachers can upload their PPTs to share!
*******
Exceprt from the developer, Neema Moraveji’s site,
We put normal mice on each desk of a classroom and connect them to a single computer. We connect a projector to that computer so all the children using those mice are looking at the same large screen. The teacher controls (and creates) the social activities on the computer easily and scores of students can join in simultaneously.
From the student’s perspective, they are engaged with the teaching content because they can reach out and ‘touch’ it, playing with their friends on-screen and completing the activities. The children enjoy the fact that everybody can see everybody else’s on-screen avatar, making it a shared experience.
From the teacher’s perspective, she remains in control of the class but can easily switch on interactive activities that keep students engaged and allow once quiet children a voice. Mischief reads normal PowerPoint files and makes them come to life, so creating new activities is easy: just add slides and clip-art.
Paper: Mischief: supporting remote teaching in developing regions; authors: Neema Moraveji, Taemie Kim, James Ge, Udai Singh Pawar, Kathleen Mulcahy, and Kori Inkpen
April 2008
