Jude Geiger's Seminar Blog

One of the dynamics noted by Daniel Miller and Don Slater in their book, The Internet An Ethnographic Approach, is the dynamic of objectification. This dynamic refers to the manner in which human beings “recognized themselves in the Internet in various ways and found that it provided the space for enacting core values, practices, and identities” (10). One component of the dynamics of objectification is expansive realization. Expansive realization occurs when the Internet is understood as a tool that can be used to create “a version of oneself or culture that is regarded as old or even originary but can finally be realized: through these new means, one can become what one thinks one really is (even if one never was)” (10). Expansive realization allows a person or group of persons to deliver on promises that they have already made to themselves. In short, the terms “expansive” and “realization” should be understood fairly literally (11).

This dynamic is analytically useful first of all, because Miller and Slater believe that it accurately describes what has occurred in Trinidad and perhaps for the Internet in general. Miller and Slater believe that the Internet, for example, allows the recreation of the traditional Trini family and that the Internet has been used to realize ideas of free markets and entrepreneurship (11). Another useful component of this approach is that it addresses the complex nature of media interaction (55). Miller and Slater seem to be arguing against an approach that creates a binary between the virtual and the real, and the idea of expansive realization shows how new media interact with the “real” that exists without the use of communication technology. This concept is also useful because it helps explain behavior as well as describe it. For example, a Trini family may exert pressure on another branch of the family to get the Internet out of a desire to realize the closeness of the Trini family (57-58) and its support potential (60).

This idea is applied in chapter three of the book. In terms of the family, the Internet allows Trinis to reconstruct their traditional family structure. Many Trinis live in a diaspora community that ranges from England to the United States. The Internet has been used by Trinis to increase contact with family members through the Internet, as opposed to less frequent and less intimate letters, Trinis could engage in playful communications (57) that were more similar to traditional family communication than the communication found in formal letter writing. Likewise, the Internet was adopted by Trini school children to reinforce their non-school identity. The Internet provided a technique not only for children to make new friends, but to chat with their friends from “real life.” It helps them realize their identity as limers, which may not have been as easily established without the Internet because of curfews and possible parental supervision.

Furthermore, the structure of the Internet helped Trinis develop traditional kinship networks. As Miller and Slater note, even before the introduction of the Internet, the Trini family structure of kinship was more a potential network rather than a mere series of circles. Kinship in Trinidad was more pragmatically oriented than in other nations (80). The qualities of the Internet reinforced the pragmatic and networked nature of these kinship relations (81). This is an interesting argument, because it suggests that for the Trini people the Internet allowed the expansive realization of the Trini family whereas in other cultures, where kinship is structured more circularly, the Internet might offer an expansive potential to construct a new family, or a new network of relationships. It also suggests that Trini communication more closely corresponded to methods used to communicate on the Internet than those used in other societies.

One of the assumptions associated with this approach is that while the Internet and “real life” do not exist in a binary, they do represent different concepts. The dynamics of realization assume a self that is constructed prior to the Internet and prior to the construction of identity through Internet technology. In short, nothing could be realized without its prior existence or conception. This idea may have been more useful in 2001 than it will be in the future. Many children in Trinidad are now growing up with access to the Internet, as the authors note, “the Internet is already huge in Trinidad” (27). The identity constructed by these children will not have developed outside of the Internet or communication technology. Therefore, it will be difficult to find a dynamic realization since their identity has already been partially created through the use of Internet technology.

Likewise, this use is related to the ethnographic approach developed in this book. Miller and Slater note that their approach understands the Internet to be embedded in a particular location, that it also interacts with and changes (21). Their approach is focused on the “long-term” and was one based on interviews that were both formal and informal (22). The dynamics of objectification and expansive realization seem especially useful for this approach. The dynamics of realization explores the relationship between the culture and identify of a particular location and how it interacts with the Internet. Also, the dynamics of realization do not often occur overnight. It takes time in order to realize elements of identity such as the Trini family, for example other family members must go online before this identity can be realized. This approach might raise concerns that it is too limited. However, the authors correctly note that ethnography should “form part of a comparative project” (22). Therefore, many of my methodological concerns are reduced. Even if the close fit between their authors approach and the idea of expansive relationship have the potential to hint at a methodological bias, this concern becomes less serious because of Miller and Slater’s encouragement to consider other approaches.

Posted by jgeiger3 at 02:25 PM | Permalink

My paper may be acessed here: Download file

Posted by jgeiger3 at 08:33 PM | Permalink

When scholars address communication technologies, they have a tendency to focus on those that succeed, which are then described as diffusing through society until they are widespread. In contrast to this approach, Claude Fischer, in his book, American Calling A Social History of the Telephone to 1940, analyzes the decline in rural telephony. I applaud Fischer for adopting this approach and find that his method is successful.

Fischer begins by describing the diffusion of the telephone (86-101). Price competition was generally assumed responsible for the spread of the telephone (88). This change is attributed not to the expansion of the Bell Corporation but to the establishment of telephone service by rural cooperatives (94). I find this explanation of the rise of the telephone interesting and useful and Fischer is correct to note that, “An irony of telephone history is that, just as the industry struggled mightily to create the need for the telephone among urban Americans… it largely ignored a strong, spontaneous demand for the telephone among rural Americans” (99). It is noteworthy that Fischer is not only providing an alternative explanation in his analysis of the decline of the telephone. The rise of rural telephone use, or at least Fischer’s understanding of it, progressed differently than the rise of other media, such as the development of radio documented by Susan Douglas.

The “fall” of rural telephone usage is then explored by Fischer. He rejects the idea that the Depression and stronger interest in automobiles explain the decline in telephone usage (102-103). I was originally inclined to oppose this contention. However, Fischer then argues that the disinterest of large corporations in rural telephony and the poor quality of cooperative provided services better explain this conclusion (103). He continues and provides an empirical argument. For example, farmers had funds to spend on other “luxury” goods and the telephone cost less than the automobile and was approximately as expensive as one year’s supply of tobacco (102). Likewise, while the automobile cost $100, this cost did not include expenses such as gasoline and repairs (110). Fischer then provides a numerical analysis of telephone usage and suggests another factor, that automobiles were subsidized while telephone usage was not (114). After reading this evidence, I decided that my opposition was unwarranted and that Fischer had made his case.

I must admit that I am not a statistician, and I generally find statistics and similar empirical evidence to be fairly unconvincing. I think that Fischer is successful in explaining the decline of rural telephone usage because he couples his use of numbers and statistics with well reasoned arguments. Furthermore, Fischer does not rest on the weight of his numbers. Instead, he provides an explanation of the meaning of his statistics and connects them with qualitative evidence. By doing so, Fischer makes his empirical observations convincing and understandable. Additionally, the visual aids included in Fischer’s discussion were appropriate (93, 102). Fischer did not complicate these depictions with complicated data or designs and he likewise refrained from including too much information in his graphics. For example, the two charts on page 102 could have been combined into one. Fischer’s decision to not do so makes these charts and his work in general more approachable and convincing.

Overall, I believe that Fischer’s analysis of the decline of rural telephone usage demonstrates a strength in his method. Much can be learned by investigating why a technology fails to diffuse successfully and Fischer’s observations on the telephone may have modern relevance. Indeed, they have prompted me to reconsider some of Nicholas Negroponte’s now classic arguments about the adoption of technology. Although it has been many years since I read Being Digital, I would interpret Negroponte to suggest that technologies inherently have an adoption curve, and that the diffusion of new technology may experience a decline, as also seen in the case of Atari and the diffusion of video game technology.

It is interesting that Fischer’s work was published in 1992, and Negroponte’s in 1995. I am curious to learn if Negroponte read or was aware of America Calling prior to the creation of his own work. Assuming Negroponte was aware of Fischer’s ideas, his work can be seen to clarify the issue of class in America Calling. Fischer treats class in a general manner, noting that “people of higher status generally adopt innovations earlier than those of lower standing” (108) and has a section later in the same chapter entitled, “Working Class Families in 1918-1919” (117). In this frame Negroponte can also been seen as arguing that the experiences of the telephone will be repeated in other technological diffusions and that the decline explored by Fischer might have been anticipated.

In some ways, Fischer’s approach was read by me as a complication and continuation of Negroponte’s ideas. I realize that this argument rejects the factual evidence. Negroponte either read Fischer or was unaware of Fischer. Fischer could not have read Being Digital at the time he was writing America Calling because that work did not exist at the time. However, there may be interesting insights that can be obtained by viewing Fischer as continuing rather than possibly inspiring the work of Negroponte. Perhaps because of my personal chronology, I am inclined to ask what Fischer adds to the work of Negroponte. Reading Fischer anachronistically as an insight urges one to recognize the diverse factors that can impact the adoption of factors, especially the factor of government subsidies (107). Fisher emphasizes the multifaceted nature of power and its intersection with technology in more detail than Negoroponte. Additionally, Fischer suggests that the use of new technology may be governed by a rural/urban binary divide, a matter that I do not believe Negroponte directly addresses. Finally, Fischer’s work also suggests that early adopters of technology, such as rural farmers, may not correspond to the vision of early adopters conveyed in popular culture as wealthy urban elites (98).

I enjoyed Fischer’s investigation into the decline of rural telephone usage and find his approach valid. Perhaps my initial resistance to Fischer’s arguments comes from my own exposure to “simple models of technological modernization” (107). It also is interesting to note the connection between Negroponte’s and Fischer’s insights and the current Internet “boom” referred to by some as “Web 2.0.” The work of these authors suggests that this may not be “Boom 2.0” and that the corresponding “Bust 2.0” may not occur. Instead, “Web 2.0” might be considered to be the Internet, recalibrated and continuing.

Finally, I apologize to Professor Negroponte if I have misread his work. I believe that I have conveyed his central argument, but it has been a long time (probably seven or eight years) since I last read Being Digital. It is a credit to Negroponte that despite this passage of time, I and many others find his arguments and insights in Being Digital intriguing and stil worthy of comment.

Posted by jgeiger3 at 05:07 PM | Permalink

In her book, Inventing American Broadcasting, Susan Douglas provides a social constructivist approach to the radio in order to avoid an approach characterized by technological determinism. Determinism may certainly be avoided by advocating an approach that permits for more than one possible outcome. However, I do not believe that an approach should be adopted simply because it is NOT another approach. I hope that Douglas employed her approach because she believed that it was the best method, and not merely because of its stark contrast to technological determinism. I will attempt to avoid this binary in constructing my own approach, using Douglas’s materials, and where appropriate explaining further evidence that supports my argument. I label my method the legal realist approach because of its close connection with legal realism, although readers not acquainted with this school of thought may recognize its similarity to political economy studies of communication.

The first noticeable difference between our approaches would be that almost all of Douglas’s work would be condensed into a chapter, or perhaps a few opening pages. As a legal realist, I would not be particularly interested in the inventors, their wives, or their coverage in newspapers. I would want to provide basic facts about the creation of radio technology, and would include some information cited by Douglas. For example, I would want to mention Marconi’s name, and the America’s cup race (Douglas xvi-xvii) perhaps as an attention getter. However, I would likely frame most of Douglas’s work based on the intellectual property disputes between the inventors. For example, I would be interested in AT&T interaction with Lee De Forest (Douglas 244) and would emphasize how his lack of financial resources led to his agreement with AT&T.

Likewise, I would mention the first radio regulations. I would explore the Titanic disaster, but would suggest that Congress realized it was an election year, and responded to the Titanic disaster in order to win votes (Douglas 226). However, the first radio regulations would not be fully explored in my book. As a legal realist, I would cite these legal issues as background information. I would primarily be concerned with legal strategies that could modify the current law, and quite frankly I wouldn’t see the early regulations of radio as that important. I would think that radio was more similar to a telephone or telegraph at this time, and that the legal authority of these laws is fairly irrelevant, since radio is now a broadcast medium and as a legal realist, I am primarily interested in the current situation. I am interested in the past because of its practical and pragmatic influence on the future.

Finally, my work would begin at the point where Douglas’s ends. I would focus my primary attention to the figure of Herbert Hoover and the actions taken in Congress that led to the passage of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934. I would begin by exploring how Herbert Hoover personally influenced the development of radio and how these decisions were guided by Hoover’s psyche, his personal belief in the value of commerce and business. I would emphasize the small amount of concern expressed for amateur operators. This would be explained by their lack of power and perhaps an inability to organize due to their youth and geographic disparity. I would then closely analyze the proceedings that led to the formation of the Communications Act of 1934, and cite examples that demonstrate the political power of large corporations. Likewise, I would spend a great deal of time addressing the formation of RCA (Douglas 284-286) and would emphasize that the United States government participated in the formation of a monopoly, and that the members of this monopoly contributed heavily to members of Congress. I would then briefly explore the legal developments that have affected radio up until the present. I would continue my trope about the influence of corporations in American politics and law, and I would cite more recent examples that demonstrate the continuity of the shady dealings that led to the creation of the Communications Act of 1934.

Like Douglas, I would argue that the fate of radio was not inevitable, and that many other outcomes existed. However, I would emphasize the institutional political and economic factors that led to the establishment of the current regime. I would portray individuals more from a psychological or Machiavellian perspective than a social perspective. Unlike Douglas, I would have little interest in press coverage of the radio, and would only view the press as a potential legal and economic actor rather than a creator of discourse and norms. I would almost certainly conclude my book, or perhaps even each chapter of my book, by connecting the history of radio to the modern situation related to the Internet. I would emphasize that the Internet has not yet been foreclosed by the law and that we, like humans in the early 1920’s, live in a period of growth and change. I would urge that members of the world community take action in order to prevent a repeat of the Communications Act of 1934 for the Internet. I also would likely emphasize that the Communications Act of 1934 is terrible and should be reformed but would contend that this type of reform is very difficult because the players have already been institutionalized and now possess a great deal of power. I would then return to the Internet and urge the reader to reform now, before a corporate Internet is institutionalized in the law.

For an excellent example of the legal realist approach, and to gain insight into copyright and patent law in general, I recommend Jessica Litman's book Digital Copyright, which has recently been updated.

References to Douglas are to her evidence, and do not reflect her arguments.

Posted by jgeiger3 at 05:15 PM | Permalink