Reading Responses – When Old Technologies were New

Question 1 –  In the introduction, the author spends quite a bit of time making the argument that electric media history starts with the very early methods of communication such as the telephone and telegram, and even the electric light bulb. Also, the argument is made that it is not simply an evolution of technical efficiency.  Discuss the points the author uses to back up these claims and how those points also apply to the “Age of the Information Superhighway.”

 

Response 1 – Marvin makes some very salient points about what matters in regards to new technology.  Firstly, she states that all of our current technology has root in the original technologies of the telegraph, the phonograph, the electric light, wireless, and cinema. I completely agree with this, because these are the simplest forms of the technologies we use today. I think of the devices we use regularly like cell phones, computers, televisions, etc. as evolutionary relatives of these devices. The author doesn’t explicitly state this, but they are the most rudimentary electric devices used for interpersonal communication, audio recording and playback, video recording and playback, electrical infrastructure, and the transmission of data without wires. Without radio we wouldn’t have wireless internet, without the electric light and cinema we wouldn’t have flatscreen TVs to watch football on, and more. In this way, these devices have shaped the technology we have today.

However, the author also alludes to the fact that the most important aspects of new media aren’t the devices we have but rather the way we interact with them and how the existing social and power landscapes relate to them, assimilate them, and are changed by them. The author speaks at length about those in power and the elite using their knowledge and status as electricians as a form of social control, marginalizing those who don’t occupy a privileged position in society with harsh words and deception.

Once again, this theory seems to ring true. Then, the elite used a lack of  standing as a means to deny others information and access to the knowledge they so closely guarded. Now, major corporations and special interest groups selectively choose news stories and information to be disseminated by mass media as a similar form of social control and deception. Only a select few are allowed to know what’s actually happening, while the rest of the world must sift through the information they choose to supply us. Companies and corporations on the web also engage in similar practices, using the ignorance of many people browsing the web to track their browsing habits covertly without their knowledge and using them as models for advertising. Above and beyond all this, however, similar practices are still employed by the elite in many professional circles, who continue to guard their information and tools of the trade as if their life depended on it.

 

Question 2 – Language, text and specific authorized versions of “truth” play a major role in defining an expert, both in the past and in the present. As a college student you are in fact being schooled in a number of specific language, textual and behavioral ideas that will make it clear to others that you have achieved the higher status of being college educated.  You are following the authorized path to expertise.  In the Chapter “Inventing the Expert,” the author describes numerous cases and stories where a group of people delineates itself and claims superiority over others by demeaning them, often targeting those of low social status and non-white maleness.  This is a very common occurrence in nearly every specialty or sub-class, even today. Describe some bridges between the practices and stories of the past, and those that happen today.

Response 2 – The concept of an authorized version of the truth, or a marginalization of some other “unauthorized” sources of information is just as prevalent today as it was at the time the author is speaking of.  The first example that comes to mind is the relationship between the tech-savvy and older, less technologically enlightened. The stories of, “You’ll never guess how bad my wife is at using the phone!” have been replaced with, “OMG my mom is on facebook and she calls it her website lol.” The actors in these stories have changed, but they remain largely the same. The difference is that the younger generations are now attempting to marginalize the older generations by discrediting many of their methods and ideas that don’t revolve around internet research or some kind of technologically advanced solution.

As far as the marginalization of the modern woman goes, in an interesting turn of events women are now criticized not for their inability to use technology, but by their seeming dependence upon it. Women are now constantly criticized for being on their phones too much, or being on Facebook too much. The stories are no longer lighthearted tales of innocent ignorance, but are instead unfortunate tales of addiction and technological self-isolation. In a way, the stereotype of women being unable to appropriately handle the technology of man continues. This stereotype can also be found in its original form in the world of video games, where the female gamer is immediately dismissed as either very bad at video games, or only playing them for the attention of males. Thusly, their opinions and input on certain aspects of video games are immediately dismissed and it is very difficult for them to be taken seriously in the community.

The concept of an authorized version of the truth, though, is never more obvious that it is with the ongoing friction between Wikipedia and academia. Many academics absolutely refuse to acknowledge Wikipedia as a trustworthy or relevant source of information. This is because, so we are led to believe, the website is not subject to the same rigorous methods of fact-checking and veracity verification that academic works are. While some of this may have merit, an equally strong argument could be made that Wikipedia is looked down upon simply because it isn’t created and edited by a group of accredited, degreed individuals who have paid and worked for their certificates stating that they actually know what they’re talking about.

 

Question 3 –  Consider the designations “Graphic Designer,” IT technician, Scientist or even Artist. What are the difference between these titles and web guru, computer geek/hacker, tinkerer, craft-person?  (You do not need to address each of these specifically, but choose a similar pair and dissect how they carve out differing social statuses and how and why the two groups are often oppositional to each other in addition to smirking at the “everyday joe or jane.”

Response 3 – I found it incredibly interesting that the electrician community was essentially formed because they wanted to distance themselves from the tinkerers, hobbyists, and craftsmen. This fact alone elucidates two things – firstly, that we as a culture place an incredibly high value upon professionalism, and that “conventional” wisdom and knowledge is less respected than academic wisdom and knowledge. This is frustrating and unfortunate. One of the reasons I found it so necessary for to be college educated and even to enter this masters program was to legitimate much of the knowledge I already had.

The primary difference between an IT tech and a computer geek all comes down to a certificate. The difference is that one has a sheet of paper that says, “I can do this” and the other simply is able to do the same. Frequently I’ve encountered IT people who knew far less about servers, computing, networking, and programming than I did. Why is it, then, that they have respected jobs and positions when they are so often inferior to the hobbyists and the self-taught? I don’t have the answer to this, but if I were to answer it, I’d reference the statement above- people simply don’t value your knowledge until someone else can vouch for you, and the more powerful that someone is (i.e. a university or major business) the more your knowledge is valued. I would consider myself a computer geek, and while many IT guys and I are kindred spirits, I do resent them in many ways, particularly the ones who have no idea what they’re doing. I’ve heard these same people criticize the “non-certified” because they are frequently more knowledgable overall but often less versed in the protocols required for employment in the IT world. Their solutions are often self-centered, unprofessional, and unorthodox.

This enmity pales in comparison to the disdain the average IT/geek has for the layman. I’m not entirely sure exactly where this disdain comes from. There is certainly a level of pride involved in knowing how to do something that many others do not, but that isn’t necessarily grounds for demeaning and ridiculing someone that doesn’t have the same skill set. I think this behavior serves two purposes – to unify the group against a common object of ridicule, and to serve as a method of venting frustration. Many times both professionals and their homespun equivalents are called upon to fix the problems of others because they are unable or unwilling to do so themselves. As illustrated in the article (the section quoted from the Electrician), most people don’t care how something works as long as it works. This ignorance is incredibly frustrating to someone whose vocation involves the thing in question. Often it is all too easy to see this ignorance as a willful ignorance, a carefully planned decision to not care how something works or how you can fix it yourself. The result is frustrating for both parties. A great example of this is the old “Nick Burns” skits from Saturday Night Live. The titular IT guy is frustrated at the ignorance of the employees because they don’t know how the system works, and they don’t really seem to care. Meanwhile, the employees are frustrated by their own ignorance and the IT guy’s refusal to explain solutions.

 

Question 4 – A classic situation described in books and movies/TV as well in this article is the idea of stupefying  those “less civilized” with the “magic” of white male european technology.  For what reasons was this done, and does this continue to today?  How are the same goals accomplished?

Response 4 – As I see it, the whole, “Civilized fellow goes to uncivilized area and brings technology, astounding the savages,” schtick is first and foremost propaganda. When retold, these stories make the reader (who is undoubtedly more familiar with the technology in question than those it had been introduced to) is filled with a self-reflective awe at how far his or her culture has come and possibly how superior it is. This is, of course, not only usually false but also incredibly subjective. However, that doesn’t stop the consumer of this information from feeling a few warm fuzzies about him or herself because he or she knew something those silly people didn’t. This trend often continues today merely because it is a familiar trope that elicits a specific, reliable response in the person viewing the media. Even in Return of the Jedi we see a similar concept used when the Ewoks believe that C-3PO is a god of sorts. That said, this scene can be observed on many other stages in many different forms.

There is also a very familiar train of thought on a smaller scale with any exchange between someone who has no knowledge of a certain mechanism or concept that some consider self-evident, rudimentary, or common. When showing someone something they didn’t know existed, the person doing the showing usually reacts with disdain or surprise, “I can’t believe you didn’t know that,” type responses. Often this is accompanied by some manner of behavior reminiscent of hazing. The uninitiated must be either punished for their ignorance or at the very least be the object of ego-stroking or a few laughs for the other party, and usually the presenter of the information or technique does so in such a way as to evoke a response similar to, “How did you do that?”. This behavior is very common everywhere, and is usually used in practical jokes, trolling, or something similar. This is just another tactic that the intellectually privileged use to exert their superiority on the uninitiated or the unimpowered. Granted, it isn’t as overt or as damaging as the previously mentioned tactics like deception, misinformation, and systematic demoralization, but it has a similar goal nonetheless: to embolden the empowered and keep those not like them in their place.