Networks: Productive or Detrimental to Society?

    Ever since social networks came about they have taken off to be a huge hit on the internet.  Facebook now has millions upon millions of members and I personally have about 700 "facebook friends", half of whom I never talk to and some I barely even know.  They now even have a movie coming out about facebook and how much it is impacting our society.  But are social networks Productive or detrimental to our society?          
    Other than the typical type of network that we think of today, an internet social network, networks can also be word of mouth communication in getting your name out into the world.  This is a huge business practice and an effective way for up and coming college graduates to make a name for themselves in the career that they want to pursue. Some businesses even rely on networking to bring in most of their business.  For example, if you have ever heard of Amway Global, they have been around since the eighties, and are one of the biggest fortune 500 companies in America, but only recently have started producing commercials.  They relied solely on word of mouth networking to do business.  Now many people, including me will argue that this business is a business pyramid scheme and in no way should you get involved in this business, but nevertheless social networking is more prevalent in the business world than people think.
    I believe that one has to look at the context in how an individual is using the netwrok to determine whether or not it is detrimental.  If you are using facebook to keep in touch with long lost friends, than I don't see any problem with that.  But if you are using it to stalk people who you dont know or post obnoxious pictures and show off how cool you think you are, than it is detrimental to both our society and your own reputation.  As far as other types of networking.  I think that networking in the business world is a revolutionary idea and awesome in the business world.  Maybe not for a pyramid scheme, but for a student in college to go to a career fair and hand out resumes to different companies and businesses and get his/her name out in the world, that is networking at its finest.

Expressive Causality or Articulation and Assemblage?

    Technology is obviously a huge part of our world.  I don't think there is anybody that will deny that.  But the question that we have been investigating in class is how exactly it is a part of our world.  Slack and Wise have recently presented us with two different views on this matter. Expressive Causality and Articulation and Assemblage.
     Expressive Causality is a theory that states that all cultural connections or anything regarding technology and culture is derived from one essential element, or critical factor if you will. Eveything in culture has one underlying element to it which "caused" it.
     Articulation and Assemblage talks about how everything in culture is intermingled with technology and that it is integrally connected to th e context within which it is developed and used(Slack, Wise p112).  This is very different from the expressive causality standpoint in that there is no "critical element" explaining everything in technology.
     I personally tend to agree with Articulation and Assemblage.  When I get into my truck to drive to wherever I need to go, I dont think that I am doing it because of an underlying reason of efficient transportation, rather I am doing it because society has made it easier for me to transport myself and whatever else I have with me.  There are too many elements in technology today to all be explained by one critical factor.  Everything is brought together and related through the society that made them which is just as intermingled.

Why Networks Matter

This article did a great job of really contextualizing the effects networks have on all of our lives, and by all I mean globally.  I always knew that networks were important in terms of connecting with friends, joining special interest groups, etc, but I never realized the magnitude of its significance.  Using the arguments and support posed in Castells’ article, I tend to agree with his assumption that networks are the “underlying structure of our lives.”

This makes sense, especially when considering the potentially uninhibited reach the internet has on the world and its people.  In other words, networks know no boundaries.  This lack of borders facilitates globalization.  The downfall to this is that although there are no explicit borders, there are limitations to its reach based upon access.  Castells acknowledges that not all territories are able to be actively connected to this social network.  I attribute this to financial limitations; however, there may be other reasons.  Nevertheless, these people may be at a disadvantage, unable to contribute to the globalized influences, “shaped and ultimately dominated by the logic, interests and conflicts of this network society.”  The disadvantaged territories, in other words, have lost their voice; the democratic control is tarnished.  Although I am not directly impacted by such shortcomings, I would be interested to know what globally normalized concepts and practices would be different had everyone had the opportunity and access to partake in social networks?

Moreover, Castells’ discussion of space was very interesting to me.  He referred to the media (all types) as the “public space of our time.”  Previously, I had always thought of public space as room available to be used up by something or someone—tangible space.  It is interesting to think of public space, especially cyberspace, to exist without being tangible.  It goes to show that not only are there no boundaries to social networks, but there are also no boundaries to the amount of information being processed daily through these networks.  Its space will never be filled.

Globalization

I found this chapter of the Slack & Wise book somewhat disconnected from the other readings we had done in the past until I spent some time thinking about exactly how globalization and networking are linked. Now I think that there is a pretty strong connection, and I see why these reading were paired. First off, the Slack & Wise piece was very broad, talking about globalization in its most generic terms. I think the process described in the chapter has been going on in one form or another since the beginning of culture. In the eternal quest or society for more influence, homogeny seems to be the goal. Take for example, the Roman empire, or even Alexander the Great before then. These were forces that tried to rule the greater part of the world even without the sophisticated communications technology of today. Globalization is the process of cultures' influences spreading outward on a macro level.

The readings outside of the book were focused on identifying and describing networks and their role in cultural affairs. Similar to the idea of globalization put forth by Slack & Wise, this networking theory seems very generally crafted to describe a process happening all throughout human history. This is a bold thesis but is argued well in the Castells piece. I think that it's good to take a broad cultural and historical view on a topic that seems so novel as globalization and networking.

Globalization...

     After reading today’s assignment in Culture and Technology, I found that the concept of globalization and antiglobalization, to be very interesting and a very big issue in our society. I had no idea that is was as large and growing issue as it seems to be. Although I feel if I had to choose a side to agree with more, I would choose globalization- to an extent.

     Globalization to me sounds as if it is a good thing for certain aspects of society, such as the developmental, progress and convenience. Although I feel that “development” is the factor that I agree with most. Slack and Wise explain that globalization has helped the development of technology and the advancement of it in “underdeveloped” or “developing” worlds, to help them grown and become more modernized. (pg 185) But, with that being said, I feel that, like it says in the book, more attention needs to be recognized in the aspect of culture. Development is good, when certain important aspects are given attention to. Yet their explanation of globalization became clearer after reading the five “scapes”.    

     The five scapes, or landscapes ad Slack and Wise call it, help explain the globalization further. The five landscapes, are, ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, and ideoscapes. All five have to be considered when making advances in development, such as the placement of people, production, the movement of technology, money and the political aspect of the culture. While each landscape seems to build on each other or relate in one way or another to further globalization and the advancement of technologies in different cultures. 

Globalization and Networks

I believe that globalization isn't anything new to the world. Yet it has clearly become more prominent and acceptable. The example that Slack & Wise starts out about the different religions and cultures is particularly interesting. To me it shows how even with technology taking over people's lives, religious morals and beliefs are not lost. Perhaps this can be a transition into why anti-globalization is a bit extreme. Vandana Shiva, argues that globalization is dangerous and especially detrimental to women. However, I can't help to think of where the world would be without globalization. I think that many people complain and look for reasons to try to change the way things are. Yet they don't look at what they are doing every day, and how hypocritical they are.

The quote about power residing in networks I also found very interesting. Although it may be contradicting my view on globalization, I do somewhat agree with this. Perhaps because Castelle gives a convincing point. Yet, everything and everyone weather they think so or not are a part of a network. Networks become their own societies. It just so happens that now they are technological, which makes them more globalized. "Networks matter because they are the underlying structure of our lives"-- This is what Castelle says at the end of his article and I think that it is completely true. Without a network, and knowledge of the structure it is almost impossible to be sucesful in our lives.

Don't Subject Our World to the Blender

Of the ideas expressed in the globalization reading, I found the idea of different parts of globalization or “scapes” to be very interesting.  Each scape represents an interesting piece of the puzzle of progress.  More than building blocks, they weave together a complex web of interconnected supports.  Technology and media help define each other by each spreading the control and power of the other.  Though that can be seen in a negative light, there are many positives to this.  Technology supports health, safety, food, and communication, which then supports media.  Media helps spread the word of technology and its positives which generates more funding from the finance “scape”.  The finance and media thus fuel the idea of the technology “scape”.  These three would be no where without the “ideascape” providing the very essence of progress for them.  The spread of ideas allows for the advancement of communications and technology.  None of these would be available if not for the “Ethnoscape” and the spread and intermingling of different people from different cultures.

            This “ethnoscape” is also the key to whether globalization is a good thing or bad thing.  Ethnoscape is about intermingling of people and their language, culture and ideas not the diluting of different people and cultures.  We must acknowledge that different cultures may approach progress differently as India has in the example at the beginning of the article.  It shows a different outlook on the meaning and relevance of technology in one’s culture.  If we must progress we, the human race, must do it while preserving culture and the diversity of our planet. Different cultures provide new outlooks and ideas that others may not be able to see as easily based on different ideals and cultural webs.   Americans often use the analogy of a melting pot to describe America.  Truthfully, the world is a melting pot.  We must not let it become universal mush however.  Each ingredient, each culture has a flavor of its own and the melting pot is only at its best when each ingredient is allowed to keep most its original flavor.  Just don’t stick us in a blender or we’ll be right back where we started.  

Networks & Globalization

I found that the readings shed new light on what I thought connected the world. I have always known that the world was connected by a network of different people and leaders, but I did not think that every level of politics has its own network that spans all over the world. The constituents have their own network and so does businesses and lobbyists. After that, all of Congress has their own network with other American politicians, then the President and other world leaders. Through various webs we are all connected, and as more people are able to go into the network, the more complicated the webs become. 

With globalization's help, these networks will spread all over the world. Anti-globalist will try to stop it but its a futile cause. With progress of technology comes the desire from all people's to have it. Technology does cause homogenization of culture but people have apparently made their choices and that doesn't matter as much as checking Facebook to them. There is no end to the spread of technologies as they become more available to everyone, for example many tribes in Africa use cell phones to keep in touch with each other. Before the use of cell phones and the internet. Also almost everywhere in the world an American will be able to find at least one brand name they recognize, such as McDonald's. I experienced globalization first hand when I went to Europe in 2008 and was expecting to hear Spanish music in Spain, but I heard literally the same music I would hear on any American pop station, I was disappointed to know that I may never experience true foreign culture.

Globalization and Networks

When reading the two readings the one thing that struck me the most, was the fact that I had not really thought about any of this. Whatever is, just is. I am taught not to question anything, just to except it. But now that I have thought about it, in Castells piece, the idea that "network society expands on a global scale...networks know no boundaries" is rather creepy to me. I know that this concept is amazing in the way that it connects people faster and so on; but does anyone else find it weird that we have a "network society" as opposed to a... I don't know... face to face society. Even more so, doesn't it creep anybody out that this makes it so much easier for anyone, and I mean anyone, to stalk and find people. Although, he is right when he says, "networks are the underlying structure of our lives." It has always been that way. I just don't think that having a society and networks all online is completely healthy. When Castells says that "networks are the Matrix," does the movie "The Matrix" spring to mind for anybody else?

I do not always think in terms of "what can this technology do for us? and How will it effect others? and What can we gain from shipping this over seas and enslaving children and steeling peoples lively hoods?" I think more in the way of "do they even want this technology?" So when it comes to globalization, and the question of whether it is good or not, I don't really know. It depends on the situation. But what I do know is that in the piece by Slack and Wise on page 185 when they say, "Those advocating development often ignore the specific contexts of the reception of the products and knowledge, ignore local conditions, and ignore local knowledge," not once do they mention ignoring the wants and rights of those people. That's not right. And you know what else isn't right? The fact that we take away someones food for our own gain and the fact that boycotting companies that use child labor is even an issue. What on earth is our world coming to?

Globalization

            I found the chapter on globalization in Slack and Wise to be interesting.  It got me thinking about our society and our dependence on countries that most of us will never see.  Furthermore, it got me thinking about our lives without a global economy.  However, there are two specific parts of the chapter that really stood out to me.

            First, Slack and Wise quote Paul du Gay on his thoughts of globalization. Du Gay says, “The concept of globalization has achieved such widespread exposure, and has become such a powerful explanatory device and guide to action, that it sometimes appears almost unquestionable” (p.185). I agree with this statement because I feel that it has become this large push for companies to be global in order to compete in the economy.  Yet I am still confused at this large demand for globalization.  Although I do understand that there are ways in which we can rely on other countries for exports and vice versa, but it is very hard to see our own economy and our own local businesses hurting because so many companies have gone overseas for cheaper materials and labor.  This leads me questioning the intentions of our business and ultimately the effects that it is having on the rest of the world

            Secondly, Slack and Wise a landscape metaphor to discuss globalization. They say, “Because they continually contradict each other, globalization will never become a process of homogenization” (p. 186).  This statement pretty much directly contradicts a study that I had read for another class. I cannot recall the exact specifications of the study, but it was about the way music has become homogenized through a meshing of styles. Although they were not specifically referring to music, I think it serves as a pretty strong example.  I don’t think it’s possible for cultures to be mixed and for no crossing over to occur.  Maybe no crossing over will take place in the beginning, but over time I think it’s plausible for cultures to adapt and change based on what they’ve witnessed/ learned of others. 

Globalization of What?

On the subject of globalization, I personally tend to be more for it than against it, though this naturally relies heavily on what exactly it is that is being globalized.  For example, I am heavily in favor of spreading computers, the internet, and other related technologies to every single corner of the world.  This is because I believe it can do a great deal of good for many countries out there, and help them become connected to the rest of the world.  However, as another example, I am fully against the globalization of something like government.  Under no circumstances will I ever find it acceptable to place the entire planet under the rule of a single government body, as it will be destined to ignore the needs of a great deal of people (the form of government would not matter either, as even in a democracy there is always a minority which does not get what it wants any time there is a debate/conflict).  Thus, this brings me to my point:  I do not believe there should be one single term for “globalization,” as it can mean many different things.  Whenever I see the term globalization used, especially if used negatively, I always find myself asking:  Globalization of what?  After all, I’m sure most, if not all, people can agree that there are some things that would be great to spread to a global scale while there are others that would not be.

                What always amuses me in discussions of globalization, however, is the fact that there are actually anti-globalization groups.  As I have always seen it, such groups are futile in the grand scheme of things.  If one were to stand back and look at the entire issue as a whole, I do not see how someone could reasonably believe they could “stop” globalization.  Such anti-globalization groups usually claim that they are fighting to prevent a take-over of smaller, weaker cultures and governments by larger ones (usually Western governments and ideals).  Yet, this is exactly my point.  If the world’s largest, most powerful, and influential governments and corporations are attempting to do something, how can someone even reasonably believe they have a chance of doing anything?  While even I will admit that this can be a somewhat depressing view, it is also a realistic one.  Just think about it.  If the world’s most powerful corporation or government really wants to do something, it is going to do it.  Not to mention, most anti-globalization groups, as Slack and Wise mention, seem to completely ignore the idea of technological globalization.  Which, once again, raises my original point:  Globalization of what, exactly?  How can they claim to be “anti-globalization” if they do not mention, or perhaps even support, the globalization of technology?  Perhaps, then, instead of fighting against this seemingly unstoppable force, they should put their time, energy, and money into improving the process, working with it to make it better (similar to how Castells mentions creating counter networks to fight the original networks).  If you are worried about the effects of something out of your control, then you should spend your time improving whatever that may be to ensure that it has minimal negative impact.  After all, (unless you happen to be an immovable object) fighting against an unstoppable force will get you nowhere.

Technologies and Globalization

I think globalization is one of the big and popular topics for people in recent years, and the development of new technologies played a great role to build a concept of “globalization.” That is because technologies enable us to have connectedness with others from all over the world and they make a easy and smooth flow of information and products. Technologies involve not only individuals, but also societies, cultures, and countries.

In Culture and Technology, it's interesting to see the question that Slack and Wise throw to the movement of globalization; how could a person know the technological development/ globalization succeeded? They write an example of India’s agricultural, educational, and development programs, and asking whether the programs culturally succeeded. When I hear the word, “development,” I usually understand it as a positive word. Every kind of development would bring benefits so that people would be satisfied and happy. But there might be a different effect besides the positive effect. The example of India’s programs makes me realized the importance of looking at the development with a more critical eye.

Slack and Wise also point out the activists of antiglobalization movements usually use technologies to illustrate their messages. Connectedness is the necessity for them and technologies accomplish the goal easily. In Afterword: why networks matter, Manuel Castells also talks about the use of technologies by networks of activists. Especially Internet is the place where the activists can form their networks, discuss about the issues, share their ideas, hold events, and advocate the opinions. Castells says that our society is worked by networks, and information and communication technologies are the contributors to the networks.

Through reading these texts, I’m surprised that how technologies are greatly relating to our society. Technologies are always around us and exist everywhere. While I’ve seen technologies as the ones that affect an individual, societies and countries are also linked to them and composed by them. I wonder if there is no technology like an internet, what kind of society is built in today’s world.

Globalized Networks Post

     After reading the article by Manuel Castells, I think it is very striking as to how much power these networks have.  Castells writes, “But power does not reside in institutions, not even in the state or in large corporations.  It is located in the networks that structure society” (224).  Does this mean that many people are using these networks without any knowledge of what actually has the power over them?  I think a lot of people simply use the networks now because they are so accustomed to using them now and it is part of their daily routine and they don’t care or even think about the power these networks have.  I also feel that it is actually pretty frightening to think that there needs to be some sort of alternate network created in order to take control.  Castells said, “This is why to counter networks of power and their connections, alternative networks need to be introduced:  networks that disrupt certain connections and establish new ones…Networks versus networks” (224).  I mean do we really have any control over what is going on with these networks.  The phrase networks versus networks make it appear like we don’t have much influence on what is happening, and that we are putting our trust in these powerful networks.  For the most party, I don’t think people care too much about this until they know they are going to be affected negatively in some way.  Until then, everyone will continue to use these networks normally in their everyday activities.

     As for the globalization of these networks, I think that it is unfortunate that not everyone in the world has the access to these social networks and new ways to communicate with others.  However, as we have discussed in class, I think there are other things in the world more important than making sure every single person or household has access to these networks and technologies.  I’m really not sure where I stand on the issue of globalization and whether it is good or bad.  I believe that has a lot to do with what people think is important in life.  With how advanced several countries are in the world and how we “live in a network society now,” I wonder if globalization is inevitable.

Network Power

“…all countries are influenced shaped and ultimately dominated by the logic, interests and conflicts of [the] network society – the multidimensional network of networks structuring people’s lives- while also being shaped and modified by the codes and programs inscripted by people’s action.” – Manuel Castells

This sentence in a nutshell sums up the “power” of our media today. If I understand Castells correctly I could almost equate the change in global climate made by the discovery of nuclear fusion to the network society we are now all a part of. The network, thriving through the internet, is the metaphorical “stone in the pond” that is causing “ripples” that would have us reach some kind of globalization whether we like it or not. I say some kind because the interests that are being broadcasted through the use of networking may be culturally irrelevant to some territories of the world. However, since networking is already here we can’t really do anything about it. Who needed control anyway? Apparently the ever regenerative shifting “switchers” of our power elite did.
I realize I must sound incredibly condescending to the idea of globalization through the use of networks. I can’t stop thinking that not every country in the world should be affected by the “cult cool-aid” that the world powers are “drinking daily.” Besides how can anyone know if the leaders of the network are making the right decisions? Are networks leading towards a utopist world government? Or the image of a utopian world?
Aside from my skepticism of amalgam world leadership through networks, I believe globalization is also happening in a beneficial way. The advent of threads and debates that conquer terabytes of information on the internet, quick access to information about aspects of other cultures in the world, and being able to communicate through microphones between Timbukto and the Figi Islands is amazing. The world is taking an interest in each other and the technology of our time (the internet) makes that easier.

thoughts on globalization

Thoughts on Globalization:

Positive aspects of Globalization-

            Poster child for methods in which increased global understanding and interaction can be attained, Globalization includes definitions spectrum wide that deal with increased confirmation of the importance of a person’s perspective worldwide. Use of the internet provides new methods of communication in which divides that were present, are no longer a divisions as powerful as they once were. Seeing this term as a community unification more than a scheme for Global dominance, by whatever shadowy figures desire that result, seems to be the more popular approach, and I agree that its relevance is both more productive and appealing.

            With a wider global community perspective, problems at home do not seem so harsh. People complain, or some do anyway, about the crashing dollar, bailouts, the federal reserve and other economically paralyzing structures, however are comforted that the ultimate self destruction of these institutions will provide new opportunities to transform them into more sustainable and globally considerate projects.

Negative aspects of globalization-

            On the other hand, there are people who, interestingly enough, use aspects of globalization to debauch its mechanics and agenda. Alex Jones, a man from Texas popular for criticizing what he calls the ‘global elite’ for the past decade, has a radio show online that attracts literally millions of listeners every show. He hosts his show with spice and feeling that, while it is very informing, seems to succeed only exposing things like banking scams, political frauds, and really pisses people off.

            His view, although respectively, is merely speculation as far as conclusions. However, these conclusions are from a background immersed in endless amounts of research, hacked and leaked documents, Black- ops testimonies from government insiders, with fact being a substantial part of these claims his viewers and listeners on YouTube and his two websites are convinced. This is nothing to be criticized however, as there is a negative and positive aspect to all things, and meaning resides in a person’s perspective on the matter.

 http://www.infowars.com/

Globalization

I found this reading very interesting. I did not realize that there were people that are actually “anti-globalization” and are attempting to stop it. I find that rather humorous because it is incredibly impossible. I do think that it definitely has good and bad aspects to it, but regardless, I do not see any way of stopping globalization. This is seen with the examples they use of genetically modified (GM) foods. I am sure they are not good for you (or at least not AS good for you as the natural foods), but the population in the world has grown so much that it is what is required to feed people, and it still is not enough to feed everyone! As much as I hate to think of genetically modified foods, it seriously creeps me out to think about it, they are something that will probably be around for a long time.


I think that internet has the biggest impact on globalization. It allows the quick sharing of ideas, as was mentioned in Culture and Technology. These ideas can be put up on a website by someone in the United States, and five minutes later someone in China can be reading them. It has a bigger impact than a phone or e-mail because its audience is anyone in the world who has access to the internet. It is not limited to just friends of whoever has the idea or comes up with a new concept. I also found this funny, because those people who are anti-globalization are using the exact thing that has such a big impact on globalization.

Technological Globalization

Technology and Globalization is a very interesting topic for me. I find that when looking at the changes in our society today it is impossible not to see how technological innovations are re-defining terms like community and neighborhood. There are countless virtual worlds and games and networking sites etc. that allow people from all over the entire world to communicate freely with each other. These inventions take things like time and space and location, things that would have acted previously as constraints in communication and completely eliminate them.
I have experienced this kind of global interaction personally when friends of mine were studying abroad in countries all over the world ranging from Australia, Great Britain, Spain and Mexico. I used Skype, a video chatting device and could talk with them in real time as if we were in the same room. I could see their faces and hear their voices right on the screen of my computer. This technology is used frequently by people all over and is included in games and other forms of technology as well. This form of communication that to me basically summarizes globalization utilizes the internet.
The internet in my opinion is the leading contributor to globalization in our world today. Manual Castells, the author of "Why Networks Matter" would agree with me in this concept. He describes that our network society can be attributed to the development of microelectronics and software based communication technologies on a global and local scale. He says that this affects all aspects of society and I would have to agree.
As far as those who promote an anti-globalization world I would have to disagree with their perspectives. I feel that globalization will ultimately lead to a more peaceful world. As societies spread and intermingle with one another common ideals and values will be better understood and shared among different cultures across the world. I believe that if different cultures can be understood by one another there will be less cause for conflicts to arise between them. In a global community there will not be as many wars and conflicts because people will be more understanding and able to negotiate and compromise.

Woah Baby. These Networks are Pretty Intense.

My first reaction after reading Manuel Castells’ “Afterward:  Why Networks Matter” is that the concept of networks is a little scary. At the end of his essay, Castells writes, “Networks matter because they are the underlying structure of our lives” (224). Now, that may not seem all that disturbing; however, it seems that this concept of networks is a fairly new one and one that hasn’t caught on with the general public. If this is so, then the majority of people have no idea what powers have control in their lives on a daily basis. Furthermore, power is given solely to the network, especially when Castells explains, “Domination can hardly be exercised against self-configurating networks” (224). Even though we know that networks are made up of both humans and technologies and the each has a role in creating our world, the fact that these giant networks, once set in motion, can only be stopped or changed by “counter networks…that disrupt certain connections and establish new ones,” is really disconcerting (224). How are we supposed to gain any control over that? Or is that even possible if we are so a part of the network?

            And then there’s the fact that this involves the entire world, not just separate society (like it must have been at some point before new communication technology and globalization). Castells even says that countries left out of this new technology communication, which are not connect to the rest of the world in a sense, are still affected by this network. Not having what others have affects them in the great scope of globalization. So now we have this crazy network in place where everyone is in everyone else’s business. It’s a blunt way to put it, but it’s true. Slack and Wise discuss “antiglobalization,” in that, some do believe that the power some countries have in the global market is unfair and harmful to the global society as a whole.  But, I can’t tell if globalization is a good thing or bad thing. I feel like we don’t have a choice now that the network is set in motion...but that seems to be against the idea that we’ve been discussing all along, that humans do have some agency in this. Can a network change over time due to the choices of humans and their creation of new and different technologies?

I think we need to discuss this in class….I may be thinking way out in left field right now. 

Technology and politics

I found Winner’s idea that technical things have political qualities very interesting. After many class discussions determining that technology is a major influence in today’s culture, we might be able to understand that its effect can influence almost anything, such as politics in the society. In Winner’s article he says “that technology develops as the sole result of an internal dynamic and then, unmediated by any other influence, molds society to fit its patterns.” This explains the effects that technologies can either have a physical arrangement or fundamental change to the exercise of power and experience of citizenship. This article seems to think that as long as technologies continue to make things change and have the power to make things happen, they will be political.

             We’ve discussed in class that these topics of theories are just ways of making things easier to understand. In Winner’s article the theory of technological politics suggests that we pay attention to the characteristics of technical objects and the meaning of those characteristics because it could identify those certain technologies as a political occurrence in their own right. But I’m not sure if this theory helped me to understand that technology can be political or not. I’ve always thought that people can be political, not actual things. The article says that what matters is not technology itself, but the social or economic system in which it is set in. But doesn't that kind of prove the point that technology itself is not political, it's the environment around those technologies that make it political?

Politics & Technology

Though I found this reading rather hard to follow because I had a hard time staying interested (this book does not do a whole lot for me) I do understand what they are trying to say (at least I think) by Technology being Political. The comparison they used on page 175 where they talk about how just like politics through legislative laws change and establish frameworks that endure over a long span of time, technology too, creates a framework that also endures over a long span of time. Both of these things change and influence how we live our lives.

I also think that saying that people who believe technology is political cannot believe that technologies are neutral is wrong. I do not believe, and the readings from this class so far, have only made me feel stronger about this, that there is one specific way to categorize ALL technology. I feel that it depends on many factors including the time, the technology being used, the reason it is being used, and the person who is using it. I feel that technologies can be considered neutral and non-neutral. I feel that technology can be political as well, but I do not agree that you can only legitimately support this view if you are someone who believes in the non-neutrality of technology.

Another aspect of this chapter that I found interesting, and I definitely agree with, is when they talk about (yet again) efficiency being the bottom line. They use the example of how technology affects the environment, and the first thing that came to my mind is the car. Even though we may show great concern for how the exhaust affects the environment, and progress is being made with improving the eco-friendly vehicles, the main concern is still efficiency. If the eco-car is not as efficient as the car that uses gas (or even convenient) than regardless of how concerned we are about the environment, humans (for the most part) will not sacrifice even a little bit of efficiency to do better for the environment. To most people, this would mean digressing in our technological progress.

Politics

In conjunction with my belief that technology is not a neutral tool, I also feel strongly that technology is not political.  From what I can tell, people can misunderstand what technology conveys to be of its own initiative, free of human influence.  But in fact, there seems to be evidence that when there is a set agenda, technologies can be used to facilitate and manipulate certain situations to appear one way or another, where the political component comes from the individual in use of that technology. For instance, in my News Analysis class, we recently talked about the fall of the statue of Saddam Hussein in April of 2003.  This “moment in history” was more or less framed to be the end of the war in Iraq; however, that was far from the truth.  Television coverage from news broadcast stations such as CNN and Fox News were able to effectively illustrate this state of “victory” through camera angles and voice-overs.  In essence, the individual (or in this case the news network) had complete control of the use of these technologies to portray a specific political frame.  It is the only role of the technology to enable the network to do so, or in other words, to add agency to the network

The idea that technology is political scares me to no end, implying that technology has a mind and will of its own.  Although I do not question the politics which surround technology, I do delegate the political ideas and decisions to come from the creators, investors, and consumers of that technology.  We are the ones who create technology’s political agenda.  Once this agenda is set, though, we must also live with a potentially revamped assemblage that may change our culture and therefore “the institutions and structures of everyday life” (p.175).  Technologies promote a certain social structure and way of life.  This is why when technologies are added or taken away from society, they alter and redefine the status quo.  I feel that it is important for humans to not forget that we are ultimately in control of the way our society operates and the way people interact within our culture.  That is to say that we have agency over the technologies we bring in and out of our culture.  It is a scary thought to imagine handing over such agency to technology.  At this point I do not believe that is happening, nor possible, but as the technology revolution continues I am concerned with what the future and its goals may bring in this respect as new, “more powerful” technologies are introduced.

Thoughts on the Politics of Technology

I'm not sure if I don't agree with Winner's (and Slack's & Wise's by extension) conclusion on the politics of technology, or if I just don't understand it. I had trouble with this chapter because I found it hard to divorce myself from the popular definition of politics. Intuitively, we think of politics as the process of governing and organizing people. However, Winner wants us to abstract that definition to just relations of power. Like the previous chapter on agency, I don't necessarily agree with applying this definition to technology. Like agency, I think that politics and relations of power require some semblance of intention. While I agree that technology shapes us as we use it, it is a process that is started by us and ends with us.

I do agree, though, that we must change our view of technology. I guess I fall somewhere between what Slack & Wise describe as the popular view of technology symbolized by the NRA (Guns don't kill people, people do) and Winner's conclusion. I think that technology does necessarily shape us as we use it, but I wouldn't call it an agent and I wouldn't call it powerful on its own. Technology is only powerful in the right hands. Just because it has a certain power over us (such as being dependent on our cell phones or Facebook, or even a washing machine), doesn't mean it's powerful on its own.

Politics of Technology

I found this chapter very interesting. As a politics major, I knew that there is a very strong correlation of politics with the media and new technologies, but i did not know that new technologies can have politics as well. Before the reading, I always thought the most political part of technologies was relaying messages from Congress and the president to the public (while putting their own spin on it in the process, of course). Now I know, thanks to Slack and Wise, that technologies are also gateways to power. Technologies allow people to exercise power more effectively .
Because of some technologies such as the internet, cell phones, and cameras, leaders have an easier time controlling their populations and spreading their messages. Those machines and technologies no doubt have the power of politics in them because they contribute to both the political process and the enforcing laws set in by politicians. A concern of mine, and many other people, is how far should these machines go? How much political power should inanimate objects have? I think that we are too reliant on these technologies to legislate and enforce the law. What would a world be like if all video cameras suddenly went down? How would we be able to make sure that all of the population is obeying the law? This is exactly what we should worry about when we literally hand technology the power of the president.

Technology with politics? or peoples' political use of technology?

The idea that techonlogy can have a political bias is a particularly interesting one.  I think that technologies can certainly help different ideologies but only to a point and most can be skewed different ways.  I believe that it really comes down how we use the technologies.  You could say guns exert a totalitarian political view because if someone walks into a room holding a shotgun, most normal people will give them complete control.  However, if you put a gun in every persons hand then everything is going to become extremely democratic.  This example shows that the actual kind of technology doesn’t control the way we view the world; the way we use the technology shows the world how we view it. 

            In the article the tomato picking machine was actually a good example of the way we use a technology defining a purpose rather than the actual technology defining its purpose.  The author, Winner, says that the tomato picking machine changed the social relationships of the tomato farmers and their workers.  This is only because of the way it was used however.  Large farms that could afford the machine became the sole producers of tomatoes because they could put the other small farms out of business because of their efficiency with these new machines.  If someone who lived in a town with small tomato farms had bought one of the pickers and ran a business of bringing it to each farm during picking season and even hired former pickers to drive the machine, work in the shop, etc.  It could still be a very productive business perhaps even saving farmers money from paying so many people for such long hours and they could even expand perhaps.  This shows that it isn’t technology that defines the way our society works.  It is us, the people, the human beings that choose the way we use technology.  We decide what kind of political skew a technology may appear to have by using it for those gains whether they be good or bad.  Think about it…

Technology and Politics

After reading Winners article, I have been exposed to many thoughts and questions about technology that I had never thought of before. Last week I had labeled myself in the "technology is neutral group". However when it was explained why if this is the case, then it can't be political, I guess I changed my mind. While beginning the reading I was thinking to myself---how could technology not be political. Everything is political. And by this I mean according to Winner's definition of political.

While beginning the readings on Winner's article, I must admit I found myself extremely confused and uninterested. My best guess as to why, is that it began with older technologies--technologies that I think we sometimes forget are considered technology. However, I found it easier to understand his reasoning while relating it to things I know more about. For example when he brought up the atom bomb. This is where it finally clicked to me. How could you possibly have a technological device so powerful without monitoring it with some sort of higher force. It reminded me of in class when somebody brought up that President Obama was trying to have a switch for the Internet. Though I don't believe this is logical and/or fair, technology has the ability to take over lives in such a manner that it could harm the world.

My final thought about technology and politics is how it effects the people. For example economically--developing railroads created faster, more efficient business. My connection--the Bill Clinton Boom. Several job opportunities were created and lifestyles were improved thanks to the technological advancements of the time period. I remember my grandmother once ignorantly saying, "I like Bill Clinton because we were rich when he was President". However, it is technology to thank for that. So with all of that said, there is no question that technology is not only political, but influential on people's lives, as it has been for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Technology and Politics: Response to Winner

                In his piece, Langdon Winner writes about how all technologies have politics.  Now, to be clear, he is not talking about the commonly known form of politics.  Rather, Winner describes politics as “arrangements of power and authority in human association as well as the activities that take place within those arrangements.”  In addition, Winner says that technology can either be authoritarian (being system-centered, powerful, but unstable) or democratic (man-centered, weak, but resourceful and durable).  As such, the purpose of his piece is to show how technologies are political in nature, and how they fall into these categories.

                The largest issue I have with Winner’s work is that he states that all technologies are either authoritarian or democratic in nature.  Personally, I am against looking at things in extremes, saying that something must be either one thing or another (as I also stated in my previous post).  Certainly, not all technologies can fall under only one category.  After all, the word “technology” means thousands upon thousands of things, ranging from things like computers and the internet to USB cables and TVs.  Saying that every single technology must fall under one category is, in my opinion, bordering on being foolish.  Is it possible for something to be both powerful (part authoritarian) and resourceful/durable (part democratic), following Winner’s definitions?  The answer, to me, is quite obviously yes.  The internet is a prime example of such a thing.  It is nearly impossible to argue that the internet is not powerful, and it is equally as difficult to say that the internet is not resourceful.  Thus, it is both authoritarian and democratic in nature, or perhaps even neither.

                Yet, do not get me wrong, I do not believe that Winner is entirely wrong.  Without a doubt, there are many technologies that fall under these two categories.  In his piece, Winner uses the nuclear bomb as an example.  Winner states that the nuclear bomb must be regulated through an authoritarian approach, and for good reason.  Something as powerful as a nuclear bomb, or any immensely powerful weapon, must be strictly regulated.  In fact, it is safe to say that anything but a democratic approach should be used in regulating such things, or else everyone would have access to them and have a say in how they are used, which quite obviously would not end well for the world.

                Another of Winner’s points is that all technology has an inherent design/method/purpose given by its creator.  While I personally, take the view that technology is neutral and that its effects are based solely on how one uses it, I also agree with Winner on this point.  Everything that has ever been created has been made with a purpose in mind, even if only its creator has its true intended purpose in mind.  For example, Winner writes about the design of the overpasses in New York’s parkways and how they were meant to keep anyone who was not white and a member of the upper or middle class out of his parks.  While the overpasses seemingly have little purpose and the average person will not see a large purpose in them, their creator certainly had one in mind and chose to implement them as he did.  In this sense, the overpasses can be seen as political, as they helped to forward one man’s views and goals.  Yet I must say, in light of all of this, it is a bit unsettling to know that one man’s beliefs and views, which by today’s standards are quite discriminatory and looked down upon, will remain in place by his overpasses until they day they are destroyed through whatever means.  This is merely another sign of how powerful of a tool technology can be, allowing one man’s politics to be materialized and put into effect for, potentially, an eternity.

You know. When it comes to politics&technology resulting in unaccounted for excessive changes that splinter off status quo transfomations that might not be great for our culture, I am ready and willing TO... debate.

Authoritarian systems continually crop up due to the production and distribution of technology. As was cited in the articles assigned human relations become defined by the technologies around us and by side effect create contingencies that result in types of authoritarian order. It can look as simple as one person having a better car then another (thus becoming more 'popular'), or a company that has downsized their staff by introducing touch screen teleprompts; technology is here and its manipulating our lives in authoritative ways.
The 'autonomous technology' seems to be on its way to create a digital age defined by digital information. Facebook and internet databases allow us to find information about each other and anything else. The politics that once ushered us into the library to find books has now turned into the politics of urls and hyberlinks. It could be said that the internet is free but experienced cyber-hackers, phishing schemes, and tracking agencies act as metaphoric "sharks in the water" that provides a loose situation that could be only the start of its regulation. If anything once targeted by any of these 'threats' its much easier to start over and worm your way through internet freedom again. Still though this is just our current status quo.
The comments made in the articles have me thinking that the best course of action is the concept of strong democracy. Allowing individuals to become the jury in the case of new technology sounds like and exciting idea. As stated in also in the article one should remember that jury is subjected to the progress stream that we all have been on/touched since our conceptions. Making the jurors possible unfit to judge.
The creation of authorities due to technology is definitely troublesome. As if we didnt have enough 'laughs.' The creation of authorities out of technology seems to be the result of bad preparation made by the experts of our rhetoric situation. One example would be the creation of the Car, which was then followed by the creation of the road, which was then followed by the creation of traffic laws, which was then followed by stricter traffic laws etc etc.. However I must say that life without contingencies might prove to be boring... Which is why i believe that contingency plans must be created to accompany any and all technologies put out on the market, after having the technology thoroughly tested for unintended side effects! Similar to how they release new medicines and food for pet animals. tests tests tests.. its the way to go..

Do Artifacts have Politics?

            While reading this article, the first section that really stood out to me was the discussion of the very intentional height overpasses built on the New York/ New Jersey highway system.  It is ironic that something like an overpass, which most of us don’t usually think much about, can have such a hidden agenda.  I didn’t even know that something like that was possible! Well, I guess I had an idea, but an overpass with an agenda was very surprising.  Essentially, this section was saying that the overpasses were intentionally built too low to accommodate buses.  This was done to prevent public transportation and poor people away from places like Jones Beach.

            I was also interested in the section about the way technologies are built.  This relates to a lot of what we have discussed in class about intended and unintended effects of technology.  This section defines technology as something that was created to help put order in our world.  So much of the way our lives are today is defined by certain technologies that we have.  For example, without the creation of the alarm clock, what time would we get up for work in the morning? Without cars, many people would have to walk or bike to work. Furthermore, without cars, people might not even have been able to have to opportunity to work far from home.  Cars allow us to commute far distances in a short amount of time, which we never could have done before.  It’s very hard to imagine our lives without these simple technologies.  Also, what would our society be like without these things?  And, are the technologies really putting order into our lives, or just making them more complicated?

Technologies as Political Entities

I am not totally convinced by the argument that the ways we use technologies are necessarily divided into two categories, authoritarian and democratic. When he described how these two categories work as systems, authoritarian being central, powerful, and unstable, and democratic being dispersed and weak but stable, one technology specifically came to mind: the internet. The internet would absolutely seem to be democratic rather than authoritarian, because no one owns or controls the internet. Even those who attempt to do so, such as the Chinese government, fail to do so. However I don’t think that anyone would argue that the internet is a weak system; in fact it is extraordinarily powerful, something that we have only really begun to feel the initial effects of in the last decade. That’s not to say that there are instances of technological artifacts that do fall into these rigidly defined categories, but the idea that there are only these two absolutes is ludicrous.
One part of the Winner reading that I found fascinating was his description of how buildings and infrastructure have been used to achieve certain political and social ends. I’ve never really thought of these technologies as having that sort of power; in my mind they were purely functional in terms of providing space and keeping the weather out, and aesthetic in terms of being beautiful and lavish or ugly and unkempt, depending on how much money the owners had or cared to spend. However the description of Robert Moses’ low hanging overpasses that prevented people using public transportation from reaching his parks made me realize how naive this was of me. The fact that these goals of class division are immortalized in concrete and steel rather than on something as ephemeral and changing as paper and in minds further chills me.

The Politics of Technology- Response to Winner

I found this particular set of readings really interesting. I think the comparison made by Langdon Winner in the article “Do Artifacts have Politics?” is really quite interesting. I often find myself thinking about the incredibly wide array of technologies that are a prominent part of our society today and the affects that they have on me and my everyday life. I find myself often thinking about these technologies but I never would have thought about them in the manner that Winner does. The comparison between Technologies and Politics is really fascinating to me and introduces a concept with a lot of support that I never would have acknowledged on my own.

Winner’s article addresses the theory of technological politics. This theory addresses momentum, response and transformation of technology and humanity. This theory looks at and derives its concepts by paying close attention to characteristics of technical objects and what they mean. I feel that the most relevant characteristics that Winner addresses are the intended and unintended technological consequences. I feel that when it comes to technologies intended consequences are things are those that are presented in the “Politics” chapter by Slack and Wise like efficiency, decentralization, revolution, nature, risk and values. An unintended consequence would be the side effects and potential hazards that come along with a particular technology that were not foreseen.

I found the most interesting example of this to be presented in Winner’s article. This is the discussion of nuclear technology and the possibility of resorting to plutonium for power since uranium is a limited resource and is running out. The intended consequences of using plutonium would be the new capabilities to recycle the waste from using uranium and continue to produce a clean form of energy. The unintended consequence would be the necessary security measures that would have to be taken to make sure the plutonium didn’t end up in the wrong hands.

This is just one of the examples that Winner gives that supports that fact that technical artifacts have politics. There are quite a few in the article and the concluding statement really drives home the point for me when Winner says, “In our times people are willing to make drastic changes in the way they live to accommodate technological innovation while at the same time resisting similar kinds of change justified on political grounds”  (Winner. 11.). This really rang true for me, and it is a bold statement but one that see confirmation of everyday in my life.

Technology and Politics

Langdon Winner's definition of politics says politics has relations with both people and power. Politics deals with human associations and as we can see in our everyday lives, we use technologies like automobiles and computers so the human associations contain technological aspects too. In this process, power is needed to connect people and technologies, and make things work. The power assembles people and it shapes the politics itself.

Most of the time technologies are recognized as neutral tools. Slack and Wise warn us with the quote of Arnold Pacey that as the improvement of technologies please us, we are more likely to neglect the importance to engage with technological policy. They emphasize the needs of rules, observations, and our interventions.

Reflecting on the discussion of control, whether we control technologies or technologies are out of our control, it is hard to stand at one side. But what clear here is that both politics and technologies are associated with people, and people are the very ones that run politics and operate technologies. When a person uses a gun, the person is the one who decides to use the gun for any reasons. The gun does not have an intention to be used or invented. So no matter how much the technologies seem they have control over us, I believe the final decision for its usage is reached by a person. Yet, I agree with that as people enjoy the technological improvement, they start not to care about the effects and the power that they have. Slack and Wise suggest us to observe the technological politics itself. In addition to that, I also think we need to pay more attention to the people who create and exploit technologies, and the power that articulate us, technologies, and cultures.

Political Technologies

It is interesting to think that even hundreds of years ago, developers and engineers were looking for ways in which technology go benefit society and especially even politics. Although the ideas of Robert Moses were small minded and prejudice, they were a new way to look at the power of technologies. With the simple notion to lower over passes and bridges he was able to almost segregate a portion of land. 

This ability is almost scary to think about. Are our technologies being used for the right reason? If people are going to be using them in such a negative manner, should they be kept around? Thankfully, with the progression of society and politics many of Moses’ structures were replace with new, higher bridges. This proves that technologies themselves do not have any intended politics, it is the creator behind them that is using them for their own political tendencies. They are the ones that have the influence over how the technologies over society. We give power to these technologies and it is up to us how we use them for our intended politics.

In no way do I think that technologies will ever have power over us. They do not have a mind of their own and cannot determine the outcome of their use. Further in the reading, even the development of the atom bomb. It was originally create for political use and even thought the outcome of detonation is disastrous, society chose to create the lethal weapon. 

There will always be an element of politics behind everything we create. However is up to society oh they intend to use the technology and give it political significance. With time politics will change and so will technologies which allows our society to grow and develop new ideas and technologies.

Political? Yes. Status Quo? Probably not so good.

            After spending almost a month in this class, it seems completely logical to state that technology is political. Slack and Wise define politics as “the power to articulate, to make arrangements of people, technologies, and languages, to make things happen or not, to give an assemblage its shape” (174).  In fact, we have already established the fact that technology is extremely pervasive in our society and that it is an “actor” in our lives as much as humans are. Therefore, it affects the trajectory of our lives just as much as other people and greater social forces. According to Langdon Winner, in his article, “Do Artifacts have Politics?” discusses the effects in that technologies either have specific features and uses that arrange our lives and effect the distribution of power and authority, or they beget a specific form of institutionalized power. Thus, as long as technologies continue to make things happen, they will remain political.

Yet, the general culture does not hold this view. Slack and Wise provide several reasons as to why the general culture does not think of technologies as political. First, we consider technology to be neutral in that it does not have an effect on anything until a human picks it up and uses it. They also explain that people only think of politics in the form of government and its effects on culture; it is a human centered concept, without any trace of technology. And lastly, our current views of technology are a part of the status quo that no one wants to disrupt. Technology as a social structure (something that “defines regular social life”) is so embedded in our society, we ignore it. Yet, it has an extremely important impact on how we as humans live and structure our lives. Slack and Wise call for new technologies to be assessed in the same way that new laws are, since they have just as a pervasive effect, which I completely agree with. However, the question is, how does one change the status quo of an entire culture? Will it have to start at a governmental level? Will the government take technologies serious enough to begin having juries that “pass” new technologies? Or will the government ignore these concepts until the idea is taken up by the people? Or will something major have to happen in order for this way of thinking to change?

Actually, I’m surprised that there are not more political activists for the regulation of technology (not the regulation of content in video games and T.V., but major technological advances). Perhaps these theories have not had enough time to seep into the general culture. Still, we cannot continue to pretend to have completely passive or completely active roles in our relationship with technology. We are equal actors with technology.