Society,culture and technology

Related to out the technology, race, gay discussion I also would like to add my part.
“By recognizing the differences, we aren’t declaring superiority or weakness, and I think that’s the key” (Vanessa). I think as Vanessa mentioned there are also so much diversities differences between individuals, subgroups, minorities and so forth. At that point I am wondering how media, movies can reflect so much differences or diversities at one movie, one character or in one event. As an audience to all, shouldn’t we have the idea “It’s just different and that’s okay” (Vanessa) in our subconscious and conscience? I think in society usually only one way of thinking- a kind of linear- is emphasized as Besser (1993) mentions about the earlier usage and teaching of the computers in schools. I think in time dealing with much more diverse ideas will be much more acceptable and promoted both in society and in schools.

While watching some movies made in 1970s in which some part had been taken in Turkey, I sometimes surprise to see what Turkish people were wearing: men were wearing “fez” and women were wearing long, black veil. It is weird because in 1920s there is a dress code regulation due to regime change from Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic. Therefore, it is totally irrelevant to show all Turkish people wearing that staff. It is also a kind of image but not the real one. I think our biases in one field as a human being is due to lack of knowledge about that field. May be I am so optimistic, but I believe that as technology becomes more individually controlled mechanisms to reach knowledge, our biases will decrease because as Madeline says “Many times we prefer not to talk about touchy subjects (racism, prejudice, believing in god or not), most of all because we have been trained like that: touchy subjects are better left out of any conversation. For some they are very uncomfortable, because they are afraid of exposing their views. This I believe is bad, because it allows people to continue having their same old ideas, usually on the more conservative side of the road, and sadly enough even prejudicial”.

I think at the end of this wonderful course, we will have no answers to any questions, but more and more insights and multilayered perspectives to handle the questions because reality and answers also changes in time, place, and from person to person. However, I think the real success is whether you can see the multiplicity of the answers or not. I believe only considering all that perspectives we can design, teach, and learn. Thank you all for all these wonderful discussions which enhanced my horizons.

References

Besser, H. (1993). Education as marketplace. In Muffoletto, R. & Knupfer, N. (eds.) Computers in education: Social, historical, and political perspectives (37-69). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Madeline O. http://madeline.blogspot.com (Monday, November 24, 2003)

Vanessa G http://edtech6931.blogspot.com/ (Sunday, November 23, 2003)

This article is a kind of summary that we discussed during the whole semester in the Technology, society, and culture class; also in this blog site.

Through reconsidering the five major points that should be carefully considered in technology education: misconceptions of the purposes of teaching technology, and how it can be affectively implicated: enabling to students to develop moral perspectives and social wisdom; a way of art; a linking to observe changes in social and economic structures; and enabling students to develop a personal sense of technological integrity.

The author summarizes the five basic rationales of misconceptions in using technology in education:
The first one is personal utilitarian- “kids need to learn technology to get and hold a job”: technological literacy absent from other literacies such as math, science and so forth will not necessarily increase the employability of our students” (p.3).

The second one is national utilitarianism: “the nation only progress to the extend its citizenry is prepared to contribute to and benefit from technology” (p.3). “in times of rapid socio-technological change work force skills commonly lag behind leading-edge and even "best practice" technologies. In each era, innovative educational programs have had to be introduced to assist the workers in catching up”(p.4).

The third one is national security: “it's a competitive, global marketplace; either we win or we lose. The United States is in a fierce economic war with other nations that we will win or lose depending on our technological capabilities” (p.4).

The fourth one is an enlightened populace that is technologically literate will make better technological decisions. However, “our experience does not show that even broadly held knowledge on the part of the electorate will provide good decisions in the political sphere and it has been issues of privilege and power, not knowledge and understanding, that explain the unwillingness of American businesses to accept even the minimal type of civic regulation of health, safety and environmental issues by that has been legislated since the 1960s and more recently dismantled” (p.4). “Technological knowledge itself is not enough; what is critical are the goals, values and principles to which the knowledge is put” (p.4)

The last one is that technology is a pre-eminent example of applied problem-solving. “We know that technology by itself cannot solve problems of war, famine, racism” (p.5).

Most importantly the author underlines that all these features are external motivation factors, which as an educator we should emphasize the internal motivation.

Related to how it can be affectively implicated the author focuses on enabling to students to develop moral perspectives and social wisdom; a way of art; a linking to observe changes in social and economic structures; and enabling students to develop a personal sense of technological integrity.

The author suggests us to “integrating human choices, authentic ambiguities and personal passion with technological virtuosity in order to hold onto the learner who has other option” (p.6). In other words, true learning can be done as long as self-esteem, motivation, feelings are interwoven in the learning process.

The author defines the goal of teachers and educators as “to deal holistically with their (students’) natural, social, and technological environments (p.11).

Reference
Pretzer, W.S. (1997). Technology education and the search for truth, beauty, and love. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2). Available online.
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v8n2/pretzer.jte-v8n2.html

Ross (1991) shows how “social and cultural management of hacker activities while at the beginning hacking activities has become a complex process that involves state policy and legislation at the higher levels” (p.331).

While at the beginning hacking was an elite culture, recently it turned into non-elite culture and young culture.
“Hacking has become a feature of young adult novel genres for girls. The elitist class profile of the hacker prodigy as that of an undersocialized college nerd has become democratized and customized in recent years; it is no longer exclusively associated with institutionally acquired college expertise, and increasingly it dresses streetwise” (p.337).

“Every successful hack or computer crime in some way reinforces the popular perception that information systems are not infallible” (p.344).

The author suggests “a wider set of activities and social locations than is normally associated with the practice of hacking. If there is a challenge here for cultural critics , then it might be presented as the obligation to make our knowledge about technoculture into something like a hacker’s knowledge, capable of penetrating existing systems of rationality that might otherwise be seen as infallible; a hacker’s knowledge, capable of reskilling, and therefore of rewriting the cultural programs and reprogramming the social values that make room for new technologies; a hacker’s knowledge, capable also of generating new popular romances around the alternative needs of human ingenuity” (346-347).

“Technoliteracy is the challenge to make a historical opportunity out of a historical necessity” (p.347). Therefore, hacking keeps the technology dynamic and improving all the time for the better. For instance, unwanted e-mails- junk mails- reached such a huge amount that we could not stand anymore, junk-mail protection systems developed by several companies. However, I still keep thinking that in some case whether the very same companies can produce these kinds of problems- junk mail- in order to sell its antidote or not.

Reference
Ross, A. (1991). Hacking away at the counterculture. In C. Penley & A. Ross (eds.), Technoculture (107-134). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

“Are we becoming too vulnerable to technological failure?” (Stefik,1999:259)

Stefik (1999) introduces us two types of fairy tale analogy underlying the two main theme of technology: “building a technological utopia, and warnings of a rampaging technology” (p.257). In Sorcerer’s Apprentice which “the apprentice needs to learn awareness, patience and responsibility” (p.256); in Jinni and the Bottle in which “we need to take responsibility for our creations. If we don’t, or can’t, then some things are better not invented at all” (p.256).

Under the light of these two main themes, the author asks the question: “Are we becoming too vulnerable to technological failure?” (p.259) and he supports the both positive and negative perspectives giving several examples such as beepers, wearable computer technology, kitchen and home technology, fax and computer technology which combines communication and transportation technologies.

The author invites us to be more mindful while using the technology as according to him our “dreams and nightmares” about “the smart house, smart clothes, and smart manufacturing” actually based on “power and control” (p.280). Also, he underlines that these dreams and nightmares separate us from environment: “the danger is that the feeling of separateness from the environment induced by too much automation may foster a lack of care and respect for the earth. Our efforts to control the environment- to bend it to human will- can harm it and ultimately bring harm to ourselves” (p.280-281).

Some’s elder who is asking “where do these white people run to every morning?” (p.282) and what Levy (1997) commends about American middle class culture characteristic: “being too busy is one of the most common complaints of our times… There is a sense of being fractured, incomplete, less and whole” (p. 283) reminded me the movie “Sweet November” which reflects two different people’s perspectives of life. The first one, workaholic and egoist Nelson, works in one of the top advertisement company. After waking up with an alarm clock very early in the morning,the first thing to do is drinking coffee and turning on all TVs. Needless to say, he was totally surrounded by technological devices at work as you can imagine with computers, fax machines and all other things that I don’t know their name. At night, after work, he comes home cooks a sausage in microwave and works out at home. As one can imagine he has never ever have some free time and he is totally isolated from the nature even walking near the sea which is very close to the city he lives. The second character, free-spirit Sara, is totally opposite of Nelson. She enjoys every moment of her life and spends a lot of time in nature. Even though she has an old TV at her home, it doesn’t work.

Through the end of the movie Nelson understands the importance of having a balance in life and “run to every morning” is not the whole meaning of life. Therefore, while at the beginning he mindlessly uses technology and he is very “separate” from his own nature and natural needs such as having some time off or having a hobbie, at the end he learns it is unhealthy and “harmful to himself”.

Sara helps him to understand this important issue. She has a cancer and she is expected to die soon. I am thinking in order to understand our needs and how separate we are from our nature and environment, should we have a lethal disease or have a friend who has it and who will remind us the meaning of life and the importance of balancing using technology and at the same time have some time for us in our life. However, I think it is not the only case, unfortunately the economy and working conditions also makes people slaves. Also, in culture the definition of leisure most of the time is defined as free time which means you don’t produce anything so it is not valuable. Therefore, as a result of my lesiure activity research paper I found out that in most cases in American culture having free-time is not appreciated.

Reference

Stefik, M. (1999). The Internet Edge. MIT Press, Chapter 10: 253-290.

Lipartito's (2003) article explains the failure of picturephones as it has never been accepted by the majority of the target population. Also, it explains the success of picturephone as it leads to several new technological innovations such as the Internet, fax, image and data transmission via a telephone line costing very little.

Cost, manufacture, need play crucial role for the acceptance of the new technology. And it is expected to the bell shaped diagram in acceptance of the new technology: the first adopters are very fast to use it and the first and the last adopters are few but the rest is in moderate level, which is the target population for the commercializing the product. However, in some cases cultural beliefs might also play vital role in the acceptance of the new technology.

The authors gives three major reasons for the failure of picturephones: its high cost, the necessity that the other side also must have picturephone machine, and most importantly privacy.

The author through the end of the article redefines the “failure” and shows us that in some cases failure doesn’t mean failure, but the new idea or motivating factor for rebuild it and innovate new technologies which will based on the same idea but with different function as in the case of innovating fax and the Internet based on the picturephone idea.

Besides these new innovations I would like to add another one which is not covered in the article: sending digital pictures from mobile phone to mobile phone or to computers or vice versa which is very popular currently as one can watch from all mobile phone ads on TV.

However, this data transmission is again the same problem: protecting privacy. The main issue of picturephone, protecting privacy, as explained in the article seems to be still highly considered also in these new innovations related to phone due to “deeper cultural paradigms that shape technological change” (p52).

Reference

Lipartito, K. (2003). Picturephone and the information age: The social meaning of failure. Technology & Culture [Online], 44(1), 50-81.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/v044/44.1lipartito.html

Ginsburg (2002) introduces us two different perspectives related to identity issue of “indigenous culture” in technology age. The first approach believes that traditional culture is “irreversibly polluted by contact with the high technology and media produced by mass culture to protect identity against the dominant culture” (p.212). The other approach believes that “new media can bring together different cultures from all over the earth, recreating a local sense of community associated with village life through progressive use of communication technologies” (p.213).

The author’s perspective is neither the first one nor the second one, but the combination of both supporting Stuart Hall’s ideas: “identity is a production that is never complete, always process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation” (p.213).

Through the end of his article, the author continues to gives us examples from these two opposite perspectives and at the end he synthesizes that “the production of new media forms is also a means of cultural invention that refracts and recombines elements from both the dominant culture and minority societies” (p.230).

I agree at some point with the author that connection and interaction between dominant culture and minority cultures enriches both cultures adding new features and reshaping their identities. However, I think this change and reshaping occurs much more effectively in minority culture rather than dominant cultures. For instance, Wu (2000) investigated the influence of systematic determinants on international coverage in 38 countries, focused on why some countries are more likely than others to be covered and given more space or broadcast time and whether there is any systematic force that governs international news coverage in the world’s press at large. Systematic factors include traits of nations, magnitude of interaction and relatedness between nations, and logistics of news gathering. Findings indicate that the U.S. was the most covered country in the world. What intrigues scholars of international communication the most are the hidden structural underpinnings that shape international coverage in news media. U.S. is powerful not only in political and economic strength and military muscle, but also formidable in culture and media-related industries the latter generate entertainment news and easily evade strict censorship.

Based on the findings of this article (Wu, 2000), even tough Ginsburg (2002) states that both dominant and minority cultures are acculturate each other mutually, I am disagree with him in one point that he did not considered: the degree of acculturation. I think minority cultures are much more affected from dominant culture than dominant culture affected from minority cultures. Therefore, I think identity issue is much more vital in minority cultures rather than dominant cultures.

Reference

Ginsburg, F. (2002). Mediating culture: Indigenous media, ethnographic film, and the production of identity. In K. Askew and R. Wilk (eds.), The Anthropology of Media (187-209). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Wu, D. H. (2000). Systematic determinants of international news coverage: A comparison of 38 countries. Journal of Communication, 50 (1), 110- 130.

Miller & Slater (2002) in their article elaborates deeply the relationship between human beings via technology due to regulating long distance relationships in terms of family bounds, friendships and partners. They also give very interesting information about the cybercafe culture, newly constructed “internet society”, and how this new way of communication, the Internet, has changed the whole society and especially the youth with several examples. I think Miller & Slater (2002) in this article with the examples present us a new definition of relationship in the information age, but still carrying its emotional perspective.

This article reminded me one of our class discussions about whether technology, especially computers can be emotional or not. In that discussion we also underlined the similar functions of hormones in human metabolism and viruses in computer programs; both of which might cause unexpected and weird behavioral results in both mechanisms. Our class discussion was ended with the common agreement that either the technology has emotions or not is not the matter unless people consider that machines as emotional. Therefore, I believe that in the future even the way of communication change, the emotional side will always stay as humans exist.

It is interesting to observe that there is no age constraint to use the Internet: even the elderly people’s motivation to educate themselves to use the Internet “in order to keep in touch with a particularly close grandchild who had gone abroad” is very interesting. Up to reading that section I was believing that changing elderly people’s conceptions about anything was difficult. In that I was hoping to see a response from an elderly person about using the machines or the Internet in this specific case: it is a machine, it cannot enable a communication. However, it is interesting to read that may be they are much more welcome technology as it enables them to connect with the ones they love. So, it doesn’t matter it a machine, we have a machinery relations or not.

However, there are also some concerns that I would like to mention about communication via the Internet. First, in some cases such as via chat it is highly probable to get some problems related to misunderstandings as it is lack of paralinguistic features such as gestures and mimics, and other language features such as intonation, stress, tone of voice which helps us in the face to face intereactions.
Secondly, it is also probably to be addicted to cyberlife being ended up becoming asocial person with a lot of time management problems. I am not saying that cyberlife is bad, but addiction. For example, having relations with other people around the world can be very useful and helpful especially language learners to learn the target culture and improve their communicative competence skills in that language.

Reference
Miller, D. & Slater, D. (2002). Relationships. In K. Askew and R. Wilk (eds.), The Anthropology of Media (187-209). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Green (1995) shows us how the technological development in the telephone operator systems caused the socio economic change as how it was prevented between 1945 and 1980. In her article, Green (1995) states that especially Afro-American women were working in the worst conditions which causes not only physical but also mental illnesses. They were working under white supervisor and the system prevented them to promote. When the technological development in communication system happened, the Afro-American women’s position became much popular and well-paid job, which created a chaos in the society in terms of social hierarchy based on racism: Afro-American women at the bottom, Afro-American men, white women, and white men on the top. One of the component companies of Bell System (AT&T) used different strategy to cope with this problem: it closed its office in NY in order to get rid of the African-American workers. Actually they did this according to the regulations which were again in favor of white culture. For example, Separation Payment: closing of NY city office caused over 1200 women to be transferred to new locations, downgraded, or forced to resign” (p274). In order to retire under RPPP workers have to have fifteen years of service, which most of the Afro-American women had not got that seniority to get paid one year payment of the retirement.

One can ask a question: Didn’t Afro-American workers have an organization to protect their rights? Actually, yes; there was an institution: Communications Workers of America (CWA) ruled by white males and by their ideologies.

I think it is interesting to see how technology change the hierarchical system in the society: At the beginning white women were working in telephone operator systems, when companies started to hire Afro-American women as workers due to shortage, then white women working in operator systems were promoted to a supervisor level in order to keep the hierarchical order between white women and Afro-American women. In terms of gender both women had a lower position than men.

The article is ended with an effective conclusion “race became the overriding variable when white people believed that any rights won by black people meant a loss of privilege for them… When white workers believe that African-American women belong on the bottom, they do not endorse equal rights. This lack of working-class unity creates an environment in which managers can apply technology in ways that adversely affect African-American women’s employment possibilities”(282).

I am wondering what has happened after 1980s in women’s lives. Nowadays technology is much more advanced than the 1980s. While in the 1945s telephone company workers especially operators were suffering from physical and mental illnesses, nowadays workers suffer from stress. As a solution to it, leisure activities gain importance. However, even in leisure activities and the availability of leisure activities are shaped by sex and race differences. Even though technological development enables modern and various work out machines in gyms “many women feeling they are prisoners in their own homes” (Henderson,1991:371) because of the high rape and beaten and violent crimes. “The fear of sexual assault from going out at night or participating in activities by oneself is omnipresent in many women’s mind” (Henderson,1991:307). Therefore, “over a period of time, women accept the fact that they cannot do certain activities alone or at certain times of the night or day. Thus, this particular antecedent constraint to leisure often becomes invisible” (Henderson,1991:372).

Also, the definition of leisure is considered differently from different races such as from Afro-American and from white women’s perspectives. hook (2000) underlines the importance of family life in Afro-American life suggesting “affirm the primacy of family life because as we know family ties are the only sustained support system for exploited and oppressed peoples (hook,2000:38). “Individuals from privileged classes rely on a number of institutional and social structures to affirm and protect their interests. The bourgeois woman can repudiate family without believing what by so doing she relinquishes the possibility of relationship, care, protection. If all else fails, she can buy care (hook,2000:39).

Do you think in the 20th century the hierarchy between women and men are diminished? The fact that women are still not in the decision-making positions within leisure, in equivalent numbers to men, is explained either by a lack of individual ability- the women are not just good enough for the jobs- or by individual choice not to engage in certain activities or to follow a particular career pathway” (Scraton,1994:250). For example, even though the number of women working in paid work increase, the fact that most of them are working in part time jobs and “occupations remain highly gender-differentiated and only 4% of senior managers are women”( Scraton,1994:253).

I leave the rest of commends to you…

References

Green, V. (1995). Race and technology: African American women in the bell system, 1945-1980. Technology and Culture, 36, 101-143.

Henderson, K.A. (1991). The contribution of feminism to an understanding of leisure constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23 (4), 363-377.

hooks, B. (2000). The significance of feminist movement. In Feminist theory: From margins to centre (2nd ed., pp. 34-42). Boston: South End Press.

Scraton, S. (1994). The changing world of women and leisure: feminism, ‘postfeminism’ and leisure. Leisure Studies, 13, 249-261.

Kleinegger (1987) focuses on “domestic labor of farm women in the first half of the twentieth century, with special attention given to the transition from household production to consumerism, the sexual division of labor on the farm, and the role of labor-saving devices as an oft-proffered panacea for the ills of farm women” (171).
It is interesting to see making cheese was first women’s job keeping in mind “what does a man know about cheese?” (p.171); when making cheese became institutionalized through fabrics, it is men’s job “women can learn to…make cheese” suggesting that women “no longer possessed this skills” (p172).

The author presents labor saving devices started to be used by women in agriculture such as milking machines, and cream separators. These technological devices also shifted these works from men’s list to women’s list. In addition to housework, women also did the farm works. Therefore, “some women felt the need to protect themselves from being exploited by their husbands as unpaid hired hands”(p178). As a result, “labor saving devices failed to liberate women from housework; on the contrary, women spent at least as much time as before meeting higher standards, and the sexual division of labor in the home was reinforced” (p.186).

Women’s production and consumer roles are also affected by the technological inventions. For example, poultry raising technology turned women’s producer role into consumer role in order to balance the price of the product in the market suggesting using more eggs for cakes.

Its is interesting to observe the sexual difference in division of work in this article with a different perspective of farms and women’s position in it while in the article of this week the differences are much more due to racism.

However, in both articles women have not the manager position in institutions which is white male dominated position.

Nowadays, house women besides dealing with domestic works, also try to keep their productive role, in terms of Marxian “capital” because the previous one is not valued especially by men due to lack of “capital” earning. This new productive, “money earning”, women role by the help of technology is doing business through the Internet at their home.

Reference

Kleinegger, C. (1987). Out of the barns and into the kitchens: Transformations in farm women’s work in the first half of the twentieth century (162-181). In B.D. Wright et al (eds.) Women, Work, and Technology: Transformations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Although in Besser’s (1993) article the economy and economic system had a huge impact of education and turning it into marketplaces, I think also teachers, administrators, curriculum developers, and politicians are responsible, too. Moving to the Head of the class shows the impact of the factors except economy in the application of technology in class. I think increasing the awareness and effective use of technology promoting critical thinking might have impact on education.

Reference:

Besser, H. (1993). Education as marketplace. In Muffoletto, R. & Knupfer, N. (eds.) Computers in education: Social, historical, and political perspectives (37-69). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Moving to the head of the class: http://www.govtech.net/magazine/reseller/1998/nov98/educationmarketplace/education.phtml

Education marketplace
http://www.aasa.org/education_marketplace/

We are surprised to see the schools as market place. It seems as if we had closed our eyes and when we opened them we see all schools turned into market place? Do you think it happened in such a short time? I don’t think so.
Even though it seems that providing technological items such as donated computers of Apple (look for Besser, 1993) is very good for education purposes, these companies also see the schools as market place since, the companies sees the students as potential consumer in the future or since, the companies sees the schools itself as consumer? Furthermore, doesn’t the mentality that considers schools as market place impact on the curriculum?. Isn’t this another example of the economy’s impact on education?

Reference:

Besser, H. (1993). Education as marketplace. In Muffoletto, R. & Knupfer, N. (eds.) Computers in education: Social, historical, and political perspectives (37-69). New Jersey: Hampton Press.


Education Marketplace: http://www.aasa.org/education_marketplace/

Besser (1993) very successfully shows how nowadays computer technology curriculum at school based on the similar objectives of the Industrial period school curriculum. He clearly states that on objectives there is nothing changed: “to be good citizen” and “to create a more trained work force” (p.65).

While in the Industrial period schools grouped students according to their social class, gender and national origin, in post-industrial period (nowadays) computer literacy curriculum groups students again according to social class, gender and national origin: “richer school districts were more able to afford equipment like computers. So students in these districts had more access to them” (Kozol,1991 cited in Besser,1993:61).“Females are less likely to take advanced computer courses or to voluntarily use the computer due to the male dominance in scientific and technical fields” (p.62). Related to minorities’ computer education the general focus is on “having good job attitudes as few jobs were available for people with specific skills unless those skills were very advanced” (p.62).

As a result even though we live in the post-industrial age and even though there were many reports on education the curriculum, the way of curriculum design is same serving to industrial needs: Just as 19th century students learned to adapt to the new industrial technology workplace environment by attending school at scheduled hours, by learning to follow orders, and by being away from home during daylight hours- so today’s students are learning to think in a structured yes-no, multiple-choice way to prepare them for interaction with computers in the workplace, banks, or in the home” (p65).

I think this article clearly shows the strong bounds of education with economy and economy system. As the author presents the educational changed in a historical order and the changes in the economy system. As a result of the goal, to be most powerful country in the world, there is much more “stress on math and science instruction, vocational training, and computer literacy” (p65), education is just serving to economy by educating children to meet the workplace needs. It is the same situation in computer technology.

The author also criticizes the way of teaching these fields: in math and science areas there is “back-to basics” movement, and in computer education “they teach how to think in the kind of linear, logical fashion that is currently necessary in order to interact with a computer. By having to interact with a computer on a regular basis, the student is forced to present things in a structured, ordered fashion, and becomes used to not being understood when he or she deviates from that structure” (p.65).

Until reading this chapter I believed that education and social structure even economy mutually affect each other. However, I had never thought the way of interaction is actually one way: social structure to education. Also, it is surprising to realize that as a solution of the national education reports, “back-to basics” movement or promoting linear thinking were seen as solution instead of the promoting critical thinking.

Reference:
Besser, H. (1993). Education as marketplace. In Muffoletto, R. & Knupfer, N. (eds.) Computers in education: Social, historical, and political perspectives (37-69). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Callon (1987) examines the technology change from the perspective of sociology. He shows” how it is possible to use of innovation characteristic in order to transform the study of technology into a tool for sociological analysis; this leads to a new interpretation of the dynamics of technology” (p84).

He states from the beginning part of the article that technical, scientific, social, economic, or political considerations inextricably bound up into an organic whole” (p84). Even though, the fist article of this week (Besser,1993) focuses on economy and technology in education, the second article (this article) examines the general structure.

The author also creates the concept of “actor network”: “simultaneously an actor whose activity is networking heterogeneous elements and a network that is able to redefine and transform what is made of” (p.93). I think the authors refers the relationship between “large concerns that orient scientific research as well as define and control the application of technology” such as big corporations and research and development, and “the consumer, whose needs and aspirations are manipulated by the technocrats who run the large concerns” (p.87).

As far as I understood, by presenting the “actor-network” the authors presents the concepts’ relationships in a system: “the system concept presuppose that a distinction can be made between the system itself and its environment. In particular, certain changes can, and sometime s must be imputed to outside factors. The actor-network concept has the advantage of avoiding this type of problem and the many difficult questions of methodology it raises” (p.100).

Unlike the previous article which shows the economy and technological change, this article shows the interwoven structure of various factors such as consumer, producer, and their relations.

References

Besser, H. (1993). Education as marketplace. In Muffoletto, R. & Knupfer, N. (eds.) Computers in education: Social, historical, and political perspectives (37-69). New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. J. (Eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (83-103). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

The focus of this article is to “consider implications for models of educational change, for the evaluation of innovations, for the role of teachers in implementing innovations, and even for the basic notion of what an innovation is” (p.9).

Innovation focused one which assumes that change is possible and it does occur and the goal of discussion is to articulate the path to that change. Goals are identified and contrasted with existing practices. Efficiency, productivity and new ways of thinking are the key terms. Innovation directly changes social practices. It is very optimistic.
Social system focused is pessimistic stating that actually there is little real improvement, and what change is incremental and slow. “Rather than revolution, it finds reemergence or reinforcement of established patterns that are often negatively valued” (p.13).

The author instead of being favor any of them suggests the combination of both ways of change and explains it in details with diagrams in the rest of article also considering the resistance to change. The article ends with an example of a radio and television stating that even though television has more functions than radio due to economic reasons and serving to different purposes radio is still used. In other words, TV could not take place of radio. I think another good example of it is “blackboard”. Let alone classrooms, even in computer labs which are conquered by new technological items, there is still one thing there for centuries: blackboard, even its color changed from black to white.

What about the top down or bottom-up changes? I can explain what I mean by that with an example. Let’s say in one school if administrators or the curriculum developers want teachers and students to learn and use technology in their lessons, which is top-down change. In the bottom-up one students, parents or teachers might force administrators to legislate the using new technological features in classrooms. Also, in both change method teachers should get some courses or training. I wonder, how top-down or bottom-up change process impact the usage of new technology in classrooms. I don’t want to say “how effective” because the definition of effectiveness is relative.

“Studies of the process of educational change show that access to new information, procedures, or tools alone rarely leads to change. One reason is that the same technology has different meanings in different settings. The already functioning social system and traditional practices in which the technology is placed shape the ways the technology is understood and used. In fact, those who do adopt innovations are typically faced with a challenging task of resolving conflicts between old practices that derive from powerful situational constraints and imperatives of the new technology. As these conflicts are resolved by different people in different settings, the original technology takes on multiple forms” (p 9-10).

I think one of the good example of it is e-mails and language learning: The basic function of the e-mail is for communication purposes, but it is adopted in language teaching and learning setting to improve writing skills as students have a chance to write for real audience which makes the writing activity more authentic than the regular writing exercises in class. Also, it is good for improving reading as students most probably will get an answer to their e-mail and they will read and understand well in order to answer it back. However, these are not the only way of using e-mails in language learning, students can learn the different vocabulary and sentence structures by junk mails as all of us somehow get several of them everyday. This is good for especially understanding not only the functions of adjectives and prepositions but also persuasive writing.

Reference:
Bruce, B.C. (1993). Innovation and social change. In B.C. Bruce, J.K. Peyton, & T. Batson (eds.), Network-based classrooms, 9-32. Cambridge University Press.

Junk e-mail activities: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Ivy-JunkMail/

This article through its constructivist structure deals with the evolution of technology considering diversity, necessity, and change in general structure.

Why diversity? Why are there so many different kinds of things? It is because of “a result and expression of God’s bountiful nature?” (p123), because of Darwin’s evolutionary process or because of human hand –made: “the vast universe of objects used by humankind to cope with the physical world, to facilitate social intercourse, to delight our fancy, and to create symbols of meaning” (p.123) for survival?

Chicken and egg problem: necessity. Is necessity the mother of invention? Does necessity, comes before technology or vice versa?
For the first one, we observe that modern commentators praised those individuals who, when placed in seemingly impossible situations, do not despair but instead use with and ingenuity to invent new devices and machines that solve the dilemma, meet basic biological needs, and contribute to material progress(p128).
The good example supporting the second one “as was the case with automobiles, the need for trucks arose after, not before, they were invented. In other words, the invention of vehicles powered by internal combustion engines gave birth to the necessity of motor transportation” (p.129).

Then, what about the usage of the invention in different cultures to serve different purposes such as wheel? When we see that while Maya and Aztec culture used wheel in art and sciences, Near East and Europe used wheel for various purposes such as ritualistic, military and transportation. Like skidoos feasibility is one of the reason fro different usages of wheel in different cultures.

If necessity bound into culture and feasible conditions in using technology, then what is the “fundamental needs” how we can define it, it is fundamental for whom? What are our criteria? How we can decide this issue in school level related to technology usage in our lessons in our curriculums? What kind of roles do culture play in that decision? Can we overcome the cultural biases or should we go in the same direction that culture shapes?

If we apply last question into language learning: the younger learners might more open to new ideas and ways of learning than adult learners as their cognitive skills, cultural bias (such as artificiality of technology and technological relationships- i.e., chat) are already shaped. In that, teaching technology culture related to language learning might be easier to middle school students than adults.

“We cultivate technology to meet our perceived needs, not a set of universal ones legislated by nature. According to French philosopher Gaston Bachelard the conquest of the superfluous gives us a greater spiritual stimulus than the conquest of the necessary because humans are the creations of desire, not need?” (p136) Therefore, desire is much more powerful than needs, which means that desire can be directed by outside forces such as advertisements through increasing the desire feeling of us to have one of the advertised items and the advertisements are in a way of showing it as if it was our need. Therefore, as customers we do not realize that actually it is mostly our desire that makes us to buy it not our needs. Then, how we know that one thing is our need, while we desire is much more seductive? I am asking this question because I think we always experience the same dilemma and it does not matter whether we are older or younger, whether we are teacher or student, and whether we are female or male. Let me give an example of it: when I participated the TESOL Conference last spring, one of the presenters was talking about online books and its efficiency in language learning and teaching. Most of the listeners were language teachers needless to say. Whenever, the presenter introduced the palm readers, most of teachers asked for the name of best brand, where they can get it, its prize and so forth. The presenter gave the information related to basic one. I think after this presentation when these teachers go to any store to look for palm top, what they will buy? Will they buy the one which can serve to their need or much more advanced one? or how are we tempted by each innovation so update our computers such as from desktop to laptop? Is it a real necessity or are we making our own excuses and believe it to satisfy our desire? I think it is a big dilemma.

Does technology made our lives more mechanized or does it improve from mechanical to more organic, more human one? When we look at the innovations now we can see robot pats: robot dog, robot cat. Also, we can see robot human arm, leg which can be very important for a person who is disabled. However, at the same time I am wondering at the end will it be a robot human like Terminator?

“Pitt-Rivers and other nineteenth century evolutionary anthropologists stages through which all human culture has passed: They believed that each culture followed a single, broad course of evolutionary change with only minor deviations. If Australian aborigines used stone tools, then they were at precisely the same stage of cultural development that Paleolithic man had reached hundreds of thousands of years earlier” (p.140). I think the best example of it the societies which have cell phones but has not got running water system which is given by the Peacecorps speaker (see my previous postings)

I don’t know the answer of my question: “who solved the change and technology dilemma?” Like chicken and egg problem, there is no certainty which leads which (technological change leads social change or social change leads technological innovation), or as author suggested may be it is result of both changing systems. Whatever the reason, there is a certain thing: there is cumulative change in whole system like Gestalt psychology: change in one part affects the whole.

Reference:
Basalla, G. (1988). The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press. (1-26, 207-217)

Snowmobiles, skidoos, and their impact on the in Finnish Lapland, in the North American artic are considered in terms of the identification of the first “acceptors” of the innovation, uses to which the snowmobile is adopted, cost accounting of snowmobile ownership, and ecological effects in these areas.

In both Lapland and Artic Canada the first people to acquire snowmobiles have been individuals with steady wage work or other relatively solid economic means. Also, these people have at some level mechanical knowledge. At the beginning owners have some economic gains as they are hired by ones who has not got and need it for transportation, medical issues, and so forth.

However, as the number of owners increased, the economic gain decreased gained from being hired. Also, costs of ownership increased due to some repairs and parts of the vehicle.

Using skidoos increased the social interactions as it made it easy to travel not only in terms of social gatherings, but also in terms of recreation, trade, and hunting.

In terms of the difference between “haves” and “have-nots” except in Banks Island and Broughton Island increased as “haves” can reach wider areas by the help of skidoos. However, in Banks Island and Broughton Island as everybody has got skidoos, having skidoos does not have a social and economic differentiation factor between “haves” and “have-nots” because everybody has one.

As the number of skidoos increased, the ecological concern has started to be concern such as disappearing some species, over hunting, noise, air pollution and so forth.

It is interesting to observe how adoption of one technological item can change a society’s life in terms of economic and social perspectives. However, unlike the Bush tribe in Australia, in this article in some places there is not difference between “haves” and “have-nots” as everybody has one, but again in terms of increasing travel opportunities and economic conditions have changed compared to period before the skidoo.

I think using a technological item, has impact in whole life in this way or another. However, I am wondering what people do in their leisure time as using skidoos makes them save some time. Are they like tribes in Australia just “sleep” or like white man do they try to improve conditions. In other words, do they spend their time just relaxing as their cultural feature, or like white men’s life philosophy do they still working in their leisure time?

Answering this question really makes difference because I believe that one society may adopt some technological items, but can this society also adopt the life style of that society? If so, then technology has also missionary position besides improving life.

Reference:
Snowmobiles: Technological revolution in the artic. In P. Pelto (ed.), Snowmobile Revolution : Technology and Change in the Arctic (166-200). New York: Macmillan.

The purpose of the article is to explain how changed as a result of the increasing possession of the steel axe in Yir Yoront tribe in Australia.

Isolated form the rest of the world the tribes in Yir Yoront group which located at the month of the Coleman River on the west coast of tropical Cape York Peninsula had very limited contact with white man 1915 in which fort white settlement occurred. However, even in 1930’s they did not have a peaceful relationship with the White man. They killed “a European who wondered into their territory from the east; the investigating police never approached the group whose members were responsible for the act” (p.72). However, later the steel axe but not the other traded items had accepted by the group. “A good supply of this type of axe was therefore always kept in stock at the mission for sale, and at Christmas parties or other mission festivals steel axe were given away to mission or visiting aboriginals indiscriminately and in considerable numbers” (p.72-73).

Before the steel axe people were using stone axe which has power in the social structure: only men- adult men- can do the stone axe. In order to do that he should gather all necessary materials, pliable wood, bark, and gum, from the nature or from someone’s properties with special permission.
Anyone can use the axe, but only adult men have right to its possession. Therefore, women and children have to borrow it from adult men and return it whenever they finish using it. Therefore, it is always “your axe” for women and children. Also, borrowing requires a social hierarchy and social structure: if a woman was unmarried or her husband was absent, se would go first to her older brother to her father for an axe. Only in extra ordinary circumstances would she seek as stone axe from a mother’s brother or certain male kin with whom she had to be most circumspect” (p.76).
Moreover, only for wild honey and in ceremonies the axe can be used by only men.

Therefore, stone axe symbolizes masculinity, ownership, and belongings to males. Also, there was axe totem, in that stone axe had an influence on the religion. In one totem, people get names related to that totem. In axe totem people also get names related to axe.

Also, in order to get stone for the axe, adult men have to travel for a long way. These travels were usually done with close kinships. Therefore, stone axe also has a role for gathering males.

Then what happened when the steel axe was adopted?
“a revolutionary confusion of sex, age, and kinship roles with a major gain in independence and loss of subordination on the part of those able now to acquire steel axes when they had been unable to possess a stone axe before” (p84). For women and children “my “steel axe possession occurred which did never happen in stone axe. Even the young boys can get a steel axe now, so older men no longer had a complete monopoly of all the axes in the bush community. The trading partners and social activities and gatherings have decreased. It also weakened the values of inherent in reliance on nature as now one can get a steel axe as a result of missionary, as a gift in some festivals or through buying it. Therefore, getting a steel axe does not require knowledge about how to do it or gather materials for it as in the case of stone axe.

Also, totemic religion is weakened as the axe referring to stone one considers ghosts as white which is closely associated with death. “White men, too, is white and was closely associated with death, so that he and all things pertaining to him are naturally assigned to the Corpse clan as totems. The steel axe, and is clearly linked with the stone axe, which is a totem of the Sunlit Cloud Iguana clan”(p88).

Moreover, the steel axe had no mystical background whereas all items in people’s life in that totem had. Even tough its lack of mystical background, the steel axe is accepted by these people. Therefore, their beliefs and traditions were not in harmony with the steel axe that they adopted to use in their lives.

As a technological tool, a steel axe, we see how a big impact it has in the society in terms of social roles, hierarchy, sex, age, and kinship roles. The weird issue is that only a steel axe had a big impact on the society not other goods such as drink,

I think as stone axe is the one that has a crucial role in their life in term of providing food, housework, and for other staff. As it has multi function in the society changing that one from stone one to steel one did a huge impact. It is also interesting that this society after adopting the steel axe which was much more efficient than the stone one saved more time free. While the white men use this leisure time to “improving the conditions of life” and may be “developing aesthetic activities”, they preferred “sleep” and an art they had thoroughly mastered. In that, even tough the same object, a steel axe, was used in both societies, their functions considered differently in both societies.

This article is a kind of continuation of Bushman. It is like answering our classroom discussions: What might have happened if the Bushman had not got rid of the coke bottle? What might have happened if it had been kept in the society?

Reference:
Sharp, L. (1952). Steel axes for stone age Australians. In E. Spicer (ed.) Human Problems in Technological Change (69-90). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pelto, P.J. & Muller-Wille, L. (1973).