Whether we are at home, at work, or at play, mobile communication has become a staple of the modern world. It is almost a necessity for those of us who lead busy lives. Mobile communication allows us to be instantly aware of a change in plans or an emergency. These things are important and finding them out sooner rather than later can facilitate an easier life. Others disregard the recently established social norms, holding the view that the busy life is not for them: they will figure everything out when they get home. The advantage to this way of thinking is a simplification of communication in an already complicated world. In this era of mobile communication it remains a personal choice whether to participate or not. We are both enabled and constrained by ubiquitous mobile communication in many ways. Let's look at one of each.
In their analysis of the social impacts of mobile telephony, Campbell and Park make an appropriate observation regarding the symbolic meaning of owning a mobile phone. We are not merely enabled by the technological aspects of the phone: how fast it can run, what apps can be used, the overall user interface. No, we are also enabled by the sense of individuality that can be found when purchasing a new mobile phone. Different brands offer varying styles and contrasts that can allow people to showcase their personalities through another medium. No longer are we confined to just dressing in a particular fashion. We can now fully utilize technological advancement to individualize the experience and presentation of our lives.
Of course, many might consider the style and symbolism of owning a particular mobile phone over another as a mere externality of the more important, technological aspects of the phone. However, I think it was an important point made by Campbell and Park that might otherwise be overlooked. People yearn to express themselves; mobile phones enable them to do so.
However, if you were to ask someone whether they wanted any commodity to impact their everyday life for the rest of their life they would almost certainly choose the contrary. This is where we can witness the constraints that pervade the era of personal mobile communication. There seems to be a certain obligation to comply with the social standards in this new era. These standards of 24-hour information and ubiquitous communication can be intolerable at times. Corollary to such a concept, Josgrilberg purports that what we do with our mobile phones cannot be separated from how we project ourselves into our everyday lives. Although lacking any empiricism or validity, Josbrilberg's work does further solidify the idea that we are now attached to our mobile devices whether we like it or not. Constraints will always be present, and sometimes they will make our everyday lives more difficult than desired.
Throughout history we have witnessed the impact of social revolutions and communes. Communication is part of human nature. The advantages vastly outweigh the disadvantages. We understand this. The issue now is whether this adaptation is desirable or not. It seems inevitable now, that this is the future.
Wednesday 28 November 2012
Saturday 17 November 2012
How we can Conceptualize the Society of Information for the Management of Knowledge
I love how Robin Mansell introduces her paper on "The life and times of the Information Society" with Charles Dickens' most famous quote: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...". Over 150 years have passed since Dickens left those indelible marks and yet there is no better way to embody my own ambivalence toward the development of what I like to call the society of information. It is characteristically opaque, yet easy to access. It is defiantly corrupt, yet undeniably useful. No matter how many ways you choose to categorize it, the society of information is here to stay. There are certain measures that we can take, as individuals, to best use information to benefit our education process and hopefully help others along the way.
Without doubt, the operative tenet of the post-industrial society (the age of Western service economies) is the utilization of centralized modalities to conceptualize both explicit and tacit information. Knowledge management is the name of the game, and we should all be playing it. The fundamental building material of human intellect is knowledge. As it accumulates, the world becomes increasingly rife with opportunities. We must recognize the importance of the society of information in facilitating individual knowledge management, and in turn, socioeconomic development. Later in her paper, Mansell eventually goes on to discuss early theories on the usefulness of information and communications technology. An important perspective analyzed is the idea that these technologies stimulate growth and improve productivity in the manufacturing sector, leading to the expansion of new information and service-related industries. Proliferation at work! These concepts are met with myriad rebuttals about the distortion of determinism (which I happen to agree with solely on principle) and its negative affect on already existing structural inequalities and social processes within society.
Mansell offers us a history of the debate; we must conceptualize it for our own analysis. When performing such a task for the sake of educational purposes, the important factor to absorb from the dissenting views is the Aristotelian concept of phronesis. The yearning for knowledge and omniscience may not be ubiquitous but it is certainly prevalent. Practical wisdom in the form of the appropriate procurement of knowledge management can be consistently useful in the pursuit of educational endeavors. Knowledge management refers to the process of identifying, capturing, organizing, and using knowledge assets to create and sustain both individual and cooperative competitive advantage. The society of information is and unyielding tool in this regard, and should not be neglected.
In my previous blog post I discussed the negative effects that mass-media conglomerates have on individual constituents and, in turn, public policy. In his paper, Manuel Castels posits a similar idea as I have argued thus far: all societies require knowledge and information, leading to the necessary enlightenment. However, he also suggests that technology is society; they are inseparable. My contention has been that the development of knowledge and its subsequent management are the central purposes of the society of information. Castels refuses to believe that a humanistic view of the network society can exist. The ultimate purpose of such technological advancements are to be used as a means to an end, not the end in itself.
My ambivalence with the regard to the society of information owes its worse half to the lack of ubiquity and overall inequality of those who have access to its features. I discuss the abilities granted to us by these systems and how we can procure amazing amounts of knowledge (and manage that knowledge!) but the fact remains that there is a bigger foundational flaw present. Appropriately pointed out by Katie Benedict here, we realize that as the information age rolls forward, new forms of technology will take over the central role of how consumers are able to garner and manage their knowledge. Problems of inequality and inability to access information are just another issue holding back a more humanist future that is long overdue.
Without doubt, the operative tenet of the post-industrial society (the age of Western service economies) is the utilization of centralized modalities to conceptualize both explicit and tacit information. Knowledge management is the name of the game, and we should all be playing it. The fundamental building material of human intellect is knowledge. As it accumulates, the world becomes increasingly rife with opportunities. We must recognize the importance of the society of information in facilitating individual knowledge management, and in turn, socioeconomic development. Later in her paper, Mansell eventually goes on to discuss early theories on the usefulness of information and communications technology. An important perspective analyzed is the idea that these technologies stimulate growth and improve productivity in the manufacturing sector, leading to the expansion of new information and service-related industries. Proliferation at work! These concepts are met with myriad rebuttals about the distortion of determinism (which I happen to agree with solely on principle) and its negative affect on already existing structural inequalities and social processes within society.
Mansell offers us a history of the debate; we must conceptualize it for our own analysis. When performing such a task for the sake of educational purposes, the important factor to absorb from the dissenting views is the Aristotelian concept of phronesis. The yearning for knowledge and omniscience may not be ubiquitous but it is certainly prevalent. Practical wisdom in the form of the appropriate procurement of knowledge management can be consistently useful in the pursuit of educational endeavors. Knowledge management refers to the process of identifying, capturing, organizing, and using knowledge assets to create and sustain both individual and cooperative competitive advantage. The society of information is and unyielding tool in this regard, and should not be neglected.
In my previous blog post I discussed the negative effects that mass-media conglomerates have on individual constituents and, in turn, public policy. In his paper, Manuel Castels posits a similar idea as I have argued thus far: all societies require knowledge and information, leading to the necessary enlightenment. However, he also suggests that technology is society; they are inseparable. My contention has been that the development of knowledge and its subsequent management are the central purposes of the society of information. Castels refuses to believe that a humanistic view of the network society can exist. The ultimate purpose of such technological advancements are to be used as a means to an end, not the end in itself.
My ambivalence with the regard to the society of information owes its worse half to the lack of ubiquity and overall inequality of those who have access to its features. I discuss the abilities granted to us by these systems and how we can procure amazing amounts of knowledge (and manage that knowledge!) but the fact remains that there is a bigger foundational flaw present. Appropriately pointed out by Katie Benedict here, we realize that as the information age rolls forward, new forms of technology will take over the central role of how consumers are able to garner and manage their knowledge. Problems of inequality and inability to access information are just another issue holding back a more humanist future that is long overdue.
Monday 5 November 2012
The essential role of technology in relation to political economy
The prevalence of technology when discussing the political economy is nearly ubiquitous; it has been for thousands of years. From the invention of the wheel to the discovery of the Higgs boson, every significant technological advancement affects the economy and public policy with it. Turning to more contemporary scholarship, we can come to understand just how much of a palpable impact technological change can have in the realm of communication; that is, how we get our news from the mainstream media.
The political process has been altered by the changing landscape that technological advancement has come to offer. Concepts like the 24-hour news cycle and tightly-run, full-fledged, ideologically-backed news networks hold almost all the power in how and with what the general public learn about political economy issues. In turn, public policy is directly effected; often, it is for the worse. The minds of the public and of their representatives are molded by the political opinions and behaviour of those whom they consult most often. George Orwell liked to call it "prolefeed". Whatever you choose to call it, it's real, and it's dangerous.
Obviously technology plays a very important part in the advancement of economic output and the growth and sustenance necessary for the progress of the capitalist system of government. However, when looking at it in a more social sense we can begin to realize just how crippling it can be (especially in terms of public policy) when the mainstream media restricts progression for the sake of some ideological argument.
The political process has been altered by the changing landscape that technological advancement has come to offer. Concepts like the 24-hour news cycle and tightly-run, full-fledged, ideologically-backed news networks hold almost all the power in how and with what the general public learn about political economy issues. In turn, public policy is directly effected; often, it is for the worse. The minds of the public and of their representatives are molded by the political opinions and behaviour of those whom they consult most often. George Orwell liked to call it "prolefeed". Whatever you choose to call it, it's real, and it's dangerous.
Obviously technology plays a very important part in the advancement of economic output and the growth and sustenance necessary for the progress of the capitalist system of government. However, when looking at it in a more social sense we can begin to realize just how crippling it can be (especially in terms of public policy) when the mainstream media restricts progression for the sake of some ideological argument.
Monday 22 October 2012
The management of one’s public/private personae in relation to its privacy implications
In today's world it seems a fruitless cogitation to create a stark contrast between our public persona and our private persona in relation to its privacy implications. If surveillance is an issue to any member of a community, online or otherwise, one can simply choose to avoid it (or at least try to, as I will discuss later in this post). Undoubtedly, certain surveillance features are unavoidable. Increasingly, firms are collecting information from clientele and using it for means other than its original intended use. The fact remains, however, that we enter into online communities, and in some cases real, physical communities, at our own prerogative.
As I touched on in my previous blog post, whether or not we change ourselves for these online environments, we can never be completely different than our true selves when delving into them. I brought up the prospect of using a spectrum to determine how much one chooses to divulge (and how much of that information is true) about them self in an online community. This spectrum is even more imperative when discussing these matters in relation to a society of constant surveillance. As David Lyon suggests, the gathering and processing of personal data is vital to contemporary living; unavoidable. If increased social surveillance is undesirable to certain members of society, they will have to choose to avoid the communities.
As the convergence into a more technologically ubiquitous society continues, choices about avoiding communities become more difficult. Innate to the human psyche is the unyielding desire to belong to such communities. As one's friends and family converge into an increasing number of both online and physical communities, issues about constant surveillance often disappear. Sherry Turkle writes and speaks candidly about the contemporary problem surrounding an endemic disassociation from society. The concept of being "alone together" reinforces innate desires within us for mere connection, sacrificing conversation in the process. If surveillance was truly a concern to a large proportion of the population, such flight from conversation would not exist.
Perhaps the emergence of a surveillance society seems unimportant to today's youth because they simply know no different. The issue seems to be with volunteering our personal information in the midst of such a surveillance society. Anders Albrechtslund propositions that volunteering information, whether surveilled or not, can create a sense of empowerment in an individual. Such a suggestion purports either indifference or ignorance in the face of surveillance. Lyon put forth the idea that the Orwellian thought of actuarial principles taking over from ethical principles is becoming increasingly evident in modern society. However, Albrechtslund believes that despite the routine, systematic and purposeful surveillance of society, surveillance can be subjectivity building and even playful in practice. A growing indifference to surveillance among those who participate in communities leads me to believe that both are correct: amidst an increase in contemporary surveillance, most people either don't care about volunteering their information or just don't realize what they are doing (the valorization of surveillance is another issue analyzed well by N.S. Cohen here).
A wonderful example of why withholding information from certain public avenues might be beneficial to those of us involved in such online communities is put forth my a classmate of mine in this blog post. As university students the prospect of our extra-curricular activities (a necessary euphemism indeed) being made public is a choice that sometimes is even taken out of our control. With friends, families, and coworkers all involved in online communities certain things we do, whether or not we are directly involved as well, will inevitably be made public, and in turn surveilled for purposes we do not desire.
Ultimately, the tenets of democratic, capitalist society are deeply ingrained in the theory of freedom; thus, we have the choice of how much of our information we are willing to disclose in online communities which we have limited control over. However, it is becoming an increased portion of reality that in the midst of such a surveillance society the management of our personae can be taken out of our own hands. Adapt or die, I guess.
As I touched on in my previous blog post, whether or not we change ourselves for these online environments, we can never be completely different than our true selves when delving into them. I brought up the prospect of using a spectrum to determine how much one chooses to divulge (and how much of that information is true) about them self in an online community. This spectrum is even more imperative when discussing these matters in relation to a society of constant surveillance. As David Lyon suggests, the gathering and processing of personal data is vital to contemporary living; unavoidable. If increased social surveillance is undesirable to certain members of society, they will have to choose to avoid the communities.
As the convergence into a more technologically ubiquitous society continues, choices about avoiding communities become more difficult. Innate to the human psyche is the unyielding desire to belong to such communities. As one's friends and family converge into an increasing number of both online and physical communities, issues about constant surveillance often disappear. Sherry Turkle writes and speaks candidly about the contemporary problem surrounding an endemic disassociation from society. The concept of being "alone together" reinforces innate desires within us for mere connection, sacrificing conversation in the process. If surveillance was truly a concern to a large proportion of the population, such flight from conversation would not exist.
Perhaps the emergence of a surveillance society seems unimportant to today's youth because they simply know no different. The issue seems to be with volunteering our personal information in the midst of such a surveillance society. Anders Albrechtslund propositions that volunteering information, whether surveilled or not, can create a sense of empowerment in an individual. Such a suggestion purports either indifference or ignorance in the face of surveillance. Lyon put forth the idea that the Orwellian thought of actuarial principles taking over from ethical principles is becoming increasingly evident in modern society. However, Albrechtslund believes that despite the routine, systematic and purposeful surveillance of society, surveillance can be subjectivity building and even playful in practice. A growing indifference to surveillance among those who participate in communities leads me to believe that both are correct: amidst an increase in contemporary surveillance, most people either don't care about volunteering their information or just don't realize what they are doing (the valorization of surveillance is another issue analyzed well by N.S. Cohen here).
A wonderful example of why withholding information from certain public avenues might be beneficial to those of us involved in such online communities is put forth my a classmate of mine in this blog post. As university students the prospect of our extra-curricular activities (a necessary euphemism indeed) being made public is a choice that sometimes is even taken out of our control. With friends, families, and coworkers all involved in online communities certain things we do, whether or not we are directly involved as well, will inevitably be made public, and in turn surveilled for purposes we do not desire.
Ultimately, the tenets of democratic, capitalist society are deeply ingrained in the theory of freedom; thus, we have the choice of how much of our information we are willing to disclose in online communities which we have limited control over. However, it is becoming an increased portion of reality that in the midst of such a surveillance society the management of our personae can be taken out of our own hands. Adapt or die, I guess.
Wednesday 17 October 2012
Is the presentation of self and the online persona the same?
The seemingly exponential growth of social network sites over the past decade can be explained through fundamental neoclassical economics; that is, a significant growth in demand. Does this substantial demand reflect a desire to connect and converse with ones "friends" or is it part of a larger scope of contemporary projection of multiple personae on the Internet? The presentation of self and the online personae cannot be exactly the same, nor can they be exactly different. The plausibly of both indicates that we must introduce a spectrum to the argument.
A common difference among one's presentation of self and their online persona is the prospect of choosing one's interactions and what one shares to the world. Along the spectrum we make choices. Social networks are the quintessential example of such choices; we decide what information about ourselves to display; we decide how we interact with others; and we decide how to best utilize all other aspects of the sites. We don't have to include details we do not desire to divulge; we can even blatantly lie. However, to suggest this changes one into a different person seems too mystical an idea.
A healthy balance between ourselves and our online personae can contribute constructively and reflectively to our development as heteronomous beings, separate from technology.
A common difference among one's presentation of self and their online persona is the prospect of choosing one's interactions and what one shares to the world. Along the spectrum we make choices. Social networks are the quintessential example of such choices; we decide what information about ourselves to display; we decide how we interact with others; and we decide how to best utilize all other aspects of the sites. We don't have to include details we do not desire to divulge; we can even blatantly lie. However, to suggest this changes one into a different person seems too mystical an idea.
A healthy balance between ourselves and our online personae can contribute constructively and reflectively to our development as heteronomous beings, separate from technology.
Tuesday 2 October 2012
Technological Empowerment: A Political Problem?
How can one not be empowered by technology? To suggest otherwise seems like such an ugly, elitist paradigm. Now, I do not have the scope or desire to deeply analyze such a dense subject. However, as university students just look at the almost limitless access to information and interactivity that our technological resources grant us. The contemporary question surrounding technological empowerment is not whether or not it exists. The question is: why don't more people have access to it?
Barbrook and Cameron elaborate on this concept when they discuss the development of a stratification between those who are "info rich" and those who are "info poor". They also suggest that the future of technological improvement will be an aggregation of efforts of state intervention and a "do it yourself culture". The combination of government function and free market ideals seems quintessential in the development of a more socially collective digital future.
Empowerment seems to be a product of both. In a July blog post, Matthew Yglesias condemns the Internet as a "cesspool of government intervention". However, he does acknowledge that the creation and maintenance of the Internet would be difficult without collective intervention. It seems that the government's control over technology is slowly fading in the wake of technological monopolist champions like Google and Microsoft.
Moving forward, even more private companies look to empower the masses through technological development. Square, a company led by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, looks to change how we pay for everything. In a recent blog post, Farhad Manjoo proclaims Square as the technology industry's next great company. I strongly recommend reading more about the company. They seem to have the potential to significantly increase the number of economic transactions. Creating vast amounts of economic demand is an exciting prospect for the industry and for the majority of people.
It seems that Barbrook and Cameron were right when they laid out the shape of the digital future with two basic criteria:
Barbrook and Cameron elaborate on this concept when they discuss the development of a stratification between those who are "info rich" and those who are "info poor". They also suggest that the future of technological improvement will be an aggregation of efforts of state intervention and a "do it yourself culture". The combination of government function and free market ideals seems quintessential in the development of a more socially collective digital future.
Empowerment seems to be a product of both. In a July blog post, Matthew Yglesias condemns the Internet as a "cesspool of government intervention". However, he does acknowledge that the creation and maintenance of the Internet would be difficult without collective intervention. It seems that the government's control over technology is slowly fading in the wake of technological monopolist champions like Google and Microsoft.
Moving forward, even more private companies look to empower the masses through technological development. Square, a company led by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, looks to change how we pay for everything. In a recent blog post, Farhad Manjoo proclaims Square as the technology industry's next great company. I strongly recommend reading more about the company. They seem to have the potential to significantly increase the number of economic transactions. Creating vast amounts of economic demand is an exciting prospect for the industry and for the majority of people.
It seems that Barbrook and Cameron were right when they laid out the shape of the digital future with two basic criteria:
- reject any form of social apartheid; and
- celebrate the creative powers of the digital artisans
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)