Declining Diffusion and Being Digital
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.