Technology: Life’s Biggest Chore?

I’m not sure about most people, but technology is not something that stresses me out.

“Social critics have sounded alarms about the stress to the human mind and soul of having to adapt constantly to the new. These scholars point to the erosion of tradition and identity entailed by the constant necessity of moving on to the next tool, the next technology, the next fundamentally different way of doing things” (27).

Brought up in, “A Matter of Metaphor,” these so-called scholars give me the impression of a group of worried old men reminiscing around a table. They talk about technology like it’s straight out of that trippy Logan’s Run movie..technology taking over the world, sacrificing the weak, lights shooting from people’s palms. Just the thought that technology is something that controls people doesn’t make sense to me.

I can see that maybe if people are not current with what’s new, sure it’s all just a smidge overwhelming. There’s no doubt in my mind that tradition is eroding and people ARE jumping from new tool to new tool like it’s nobody’s business. But isn’t that just a part of life? We (aka the unthreatened by tech) WANT what’s newest and coolest, biggest and fastest. Those who do not see technology like a kid sees a candy store, well of course they’re going to feel it a chore to keep up.

It’s all easy for me to say. I haven’t known the likes of typewriters, old school phones…phonographs. Instead I’ve been growing up just naturally adapting to the new. It doesn’t stress me out. This isn’t something that’s going to kill me before the age of 30. I’m not going to need to go running. I can live with technology. I can control it. And the day when these “social critics” are right will be the day when robots take over the world.

(Can’t control that now can we?)

But why else is it that technology can threaten some and be so completely natural for others??

-Ryan

A Generational Google Gap

According to Cynthia L. Selfe’s Literacy and Technology Linked,” The costs associated with this project to expand technological literacy have a basis in family life as well. Parents and families, for example, continue to be charged with the role of preparing their children for the literacy practices that they will encounter in the educational system. In the case of the current project to expand technological literacy, such a task entails supporting children with technology at home. In 1996, for example, Eric Bloom reported that “between one-third and one-half of the nation’s preschool-age children now have some computer experience.” For parents, adapting to such changes may be difficult, in part because many adults raised in the print generation do not possess the skills that students will need to practice in computer-based literacy environments. Indeed, that adults raised in the twentieth century may be incapable of educating children for the world of the twenty-first century.”

This reminds me of the commercial where the kids are showing the parents how to use the phone, very fast I might add. At the end of what looks like a complicated endeavor for the parents and the simplest thing ever for their kids they chime into the adults to simply “call or text” switching the keyboard on the phone around. These staggering statistics of preschool kids prove children are becoming technologically savvy younger and younger. Many have skills that their parents don’t even know exist. But just how many is this, and doesn’t it depend? Of course economic status is a huge factor dealing with technology in the household, but lets put this aside and concentrate solely on the willingness of an older generation to learn what some preschoolers are. Parents who depend on certain technologies in their work place have to advance with the times. Parents who cannot afford the technologies don’t have the luxury and parents who are stuck in their ways simply avoid. So what about your parents, are they technologically savvy? As technologically savvy as you? And what about your grandparents? Have they ever sat down at a computer?

Can technology really be neutral?

In an article written by Bonnie Nardi and Vicki O’ Day titled A Matter of Metaphor, the neutrality of technology is discussed.  They state, “Most technology designers we know in Silicon Valley workplaces do not consider the new technologies they build to be especially laden with social agendas and values.  The idea that technologies have social implications that developers ought to ocnsider is even a little distasteful; it almost goes against the gain of free enterprise.  Each new tool is a bid for a share in a very competitive marketplace” (37).  This viewpoint is hard for me to understand, especially with the way that technology is heading.  With social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace becoming extremely popular, future technology seems to be trying to keep up these trends.  For instance, we can now instant message, check e-mail, and surf the web on our cellphones.  It was not so long ago that this device was seen just for strictly making phone calls.  As these technologies progress, they become more ingrained into our social processes.  It is not because these devices have features which have been taken over by the social world, but rather they were developed to keep up with it. 

As this technology progresses, I believe we will not see this neutrality that the authors speak of.  If anything, the devices are becoming more connected into our social worlds, eventually having 24 hour integration.  With the adoption and spread of wifi, you can be connected with anyone, anywhere.  The authors of the article discuss how this movement may be going against the idea of free enterprise, having to take into account the social world before making a product that is truly independent.  I do not think that is the case at all.  As they further explain, if the product is good – it will be bought.  However, to get their product purchased, it has to have some utility to the consumer, as they must always be included in the discussion.  What is the point of creating new technologies if they do not benefit us?  Is neutrality lost due to this fact?  Does technology need to be neutral if it serves the people?