|
Post by sdematteo on Jul 25, 2011 7:12:03 GMT -5
Marx’s article provides insight into the thoughts of many Americans by asking “Does improved technology mean progress?” The answer to this question lies in the definition you assign to progress. Some look at progress as a means that provides political and social liberation, while others look at it as a compilation of advancements throughout history ultimately leading to better things. He also shows the view that although technology allows the potential for progress, it does not always get achieved. There are sick people who use the world’s advancements for terror and destruction, converse to progress. The invention of the technology of the thong mostly associates with the first definition of progress. Although different versions of the thong have been around for a long time, this undergarment gained popularity and attention in the public eye as a social display of women’s rights. Even today, it is thought of as sexy and rebellious for women to wear thongs. The thong has been the center of many controversies, whether it be a young girls’ parents prohibiting her from wearing a thong or schools and various other institutions putting a ban on the thong for safety reasons. This shows that although it is something as simple as an undergarment, all forms of technology have different implications for the future, good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by sdematteo on Jul 25, 2011 7:21:16 GMT -5
@ mrschreck You did a good job of tying the q-tip into both of these articles. I agree that as Marx states in his work, not all technology leads towards progress. The early beginnings of the q-tip may have been foreseen as dirty and dangerous, however, it has overcome these bad connotations. You also interpreted Lessig’s article towards your invention by looking at the way in which a product can be perfected through “Walt Disney creativity.” Both of these assumptions you made while reading pertain very well to your technological invention.
|
|
|
Post by beth9any3 on Jul 25, 2011 8:29:04 GMT -5
The purpose of Marx’s reading is to defy our withstanding mindset. He encourages us to question the relationship between technology and progress, and well as the attributes to which they coincide. My group is researching the technological background of the “ring.” After reading Marx’s article, I found it astounding and quite interesting to compare the “ring” to the technology in which Marx describes. Marx elaborates on the concept of “progression” and the conflict in definition it holds in regards to technology. He questions our dependence of technology, and the ways in which technology alters society. There were two concepts that Marx addresses which caught my attention. He refers to technological advancements as “tools of our tools.” The “ring,” however, is unique to this statement. Different than the technology mentioned in his piece, the “ring” does not fit into scientific aspect. It is found in the humanitarian goals of “justice, freedom, and self-fulfillment,” which he states to have been less of our priority. I do not find the “ring” to be a “tool of our tool.” It has fulfilled our progression in regards to humanitarianism and continues to do so today, altered in various forms if must be. Marx also questions “progress toward what?” With most technology, we continue to find better, more efficient tools to satisfy our needs. For the most part, although there are exceptions, the ring has been a technology that has generally not needed replaced. It has, indeed, been an end in the progression of a specific goal- to symbolize a commitment or relationship. In most instances, we have never had to question the significance or progression of the “ring.” The “ring” is one technology I found to defy Marx’s doubt. For this reason, I find the “ring” as a fascinating piece of technology.
|
|
wzsun
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by wzsun on Jul 25, 2011 9:05:13 GMT -5
@beth9any3, I found your description very interesting and I agree with you completely that the ring represents the humanitarian goals which Marx was describing. However I was trying to think of the ring as a technology and one that progresses but with ultimately no large term benefits and one that came into my mind was the mood ring. It clearly came from the original idea of the ring, and so It made me realize that although things are usually categorized in one spectrum, there are times they cross over to the other side.
@els, Regarding the condoms, I think they hold quite a significant social progression. Take for example India and China who are so over populated that it's a struggle for food and water for their respective citizens. There are several reasons, but one no doubt is the lack of condoms. Because of severe overpopulation China is facing a water crisis, and as a result, we can say that the social benefits of condom is to largely regulate the population, as well as numerous other things that you have mentioned.
@foursquared, while I agree largely with your post and the implications of everyday technology I found this one quote untrue: "the everyday objects that our class groups are profiling must have at least one positive social purpose driving them to be used." Let's take for example the plastic water bottles. There is no doubt that plastic revolutionized the water industry, and the only use for bottled water is convenience. There is no larger social implication for the water bottle except tons of plastic in the future still waiting to be disposed. We can say that technology are driven by marketers and advertisers, and in that sense anything they want can become a everyday technology regardless of it's social importance.
|
|
|
Post by gigglegutgates on Jul 25, 2011 9:12:46 GMT -5
My group has chosen q-tips/cotton swabs as our technology. After reading both Marx and Lessig's article's I've learned that things aren't always as they seem on the surface - clearly. What I mean by this is that a technology, a culture, society as a whole; is never concrete or simple. From just merely reading both works I picked up on crucial terms such as: evolution, social progress, change, reflection, the idea of technocracy, impracticality, Walt Disney creativity, compensated and uncompensated sharing, and improvement all in relation to technology. Questions such as, "How free is this culture," and "Progress toward what?" challenge myself as a writer to hit home the concepts of political and social implications that are associated with a given technology. As seen in both articles, I drew upon the importance of retracing a history and carefully examining progress or regression in that given period of time and drawing conclusions. Lastly, I'd like to comment on the ideas of open-mindedness and culture with regard to writing a research paper on technology. Marx's article contained a lot of scholarly opinion. In Lessig's article he right out states that, "Americans tend to look down upon this form of culture," talking about Japanese comics. As an American, I know I'm aware that I create biases and naive opinions about differences that I'm not familiar with. I think this is OK to have conflicting ideas or unparalleled thinking, but it's very important to point them out to show that you're not close minded and that you're consciously aware of culture. Lessig's and Marx's readings were helpful in showing me how to create a foundation for an idea and building upon a concept by tying in multiple implications, questions and potential problems to address respective progress or regression for a technology.
|
|
bg6
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bg6 on Jul 25, 2011 9:36:09 GMT -5
Both of these articles have contributed to my understanding of the social and political implications of our groups chosen object the nail-clipper because there is much more to technologies than just what it does for us. Every technology has many different aspect to us that can change our lives in one way or another. I now realize I have to be able to be more in depth when doing this paper because things go much deeper than just someones use of a particular technology.
|
|
wzsun
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by wzsun on Jul 25, 2011 9:42:02 GMT -5
As gmfreeman has mentioned, we are doing the the chewing gum. The articles were interesting splitting technology into two sectors. In one we have technological innovation for example computers, and on the other we have social minded ideas like a wedding ring. Ours would fall more towards a larger social effect however it's important to note that gum keeps evolving. There are several social affects that gum has caused, as to political I'm not too sure. Gum today is primarily used to freshen up our breath. It's promoted social hygiene and the importance of a healthy mouth. Not only that but because of commercials, gum is seen as a necessity for dates, or any event because stinky breath is not going to make a great impression on anyone. In regards to how gum has evolved over that purpose, take for example the popular chewing tobacco. Of course chewing tobacco is terrible for an individual's health and there are always those who wish to quit. People have recommended chewing gum as a alternative to chewing tobacco as they serve a similar purpose, however that hasn't been enough and now we see businesses creating gum specifically to help rid people of the nasty habit of chewing tobacco. People tend to live longer as a result, and for that we thank the chewing gum.
|
|
|
Post by ndesai on Jul 25, 2011 10:07:53 GMT -5
I found Lessig's article very interesting to read because its about an issue that is close to my heart. Coming from an Indian heritage, bollywood movies are a major part of my life. It is a known fact by pretty much everyone there that many and most bollywood films are either complete or semi copies of other bollywood movies or even hollywood movies. This copyright is definitely not reinforced there and it may be due to the same reason as in Japan. There just aren't enough lawyers. The difference, however, is that movies that are copies are celebrated in India. In America, that would be something that would be hidden I believe. When people go to see a movie in India, they know beforehand what movie it resembles. It is just common there. I never considered India to be a very "free" culture but in this sense of the word, I guess it is. Movies in India are a way to show the "indian" twist to global audiences. In this way, movies do take on social and political implications. There, they keep the same plotline, but add music and songs - much like Disney. It is something people take pride in there and it made me really think about how it has come to shape India's projection of itself on the global scale.
|
|
|
Post by Dancergirl13 on Jul 25, 2011 10:18:08 GMT -5
Marx's article brings up the idea that technology does not always add to a societies progression as people think it does. Our group using the envelope as our technology and the articles made me think about how it is possible that people don't think the envelope was an advance in the mailing world. People may think of the envelope as a hassle. You have to purchase the envelope and seal it. Yet many people also think of it as a progress of safety and security. This adds to my idea that the a technologies progression in society is defined solely by a person themselves, not as a whole society.
|
|
|
Post by nickisonlyme on Jul 25, 2011 10:53:21 GMT -5
I both agree and disagree with you Ben. It is true that Marx expounds on the progress derived from technology, however I think you have falsely perceived the underlying meaning. Though you may take consolation in that, over time, technology may introduce solutions to previously unforeseen problems, Marx suggests that this is an ineffective political standpoint. Indeed, he explicitly states in his essay that "it is useful to ask what the purpose of this new technology is. Only by questioning the assumption that innovation represents progress can we begin to judge its worth," or when he quotes Ahab to highlight that "all [his] means are sane, [his] means and [his] object mad."
After having read Marx's essay I can value the condom more than I already do. Marx defines an ideal society wherein technology are "the instruments" by which we can achieve goals which we identify before we develop said tools, or, likewise, we utilize already established tools in unconventional but efficient ways to solve these new problems. It is unmistakable that the threat of venereal disease, pregnancy, and other sexual risks have pervaded humankind since the outset of humankind, whether hominid or a previous, now extinct species. Innovators, perhaps simply capitalists, realized either the inherent dangers of sexual activity or the same perils in a social context. They noticed a blatant area of problem and sought to resolve it. Thus, the condom was born!
|
|
|
Post by els on Jul 25, 2011 20:19:45 GMT -5
@sdematteo I agree with what you said that it depends on the definition you give to “progress.” This is like what we discussed in class today, and I think that is true. And what you said about the people who use technology for terror and destruction, completely opposite of its real intention, that’s what I think of too. I completely agree with what you said about all forms of technology having different good or bad implications for the future. I find that no matter what people will find bad in some of the greatest technologies. And I am interested what you said about thongs being banned for safety reasons.
|
|
|
Post by beth9any3 on Jul 25, 2011 21:36:27 GMT -5
@ foresquared
I enjoyed that you recognized the concept of "borrowing" in your response. After reading these articles and evaluating America in class today, I find our technological disadvantage compared to the rest of the world very unfortunate. It is a shame, in my opinion, that Americans find satisfaction in the overuse of copyright policies and credibility. I believe, in most instances, that credibility cannot be placed within one individual. This says alot about our culture and our individualistic qualities, such as selfishness. We fail to collaborate in government, science, education, technology, etc because we cannot grasp the concept of "borrowing." America is constantly at a battle with itself- making progress our goal, yet not willing to collaborate in order to achieve anything. Not only is America's failure to practice "borrowing" put us at a disadvantage, but it also defeats the American Dream.
|
|
|
Post by ndesai on Jul 26, 2011 6:30:42 GMT -5
@dancergirl13
That's interesting how you ended your post by saying that progression in technology is defined by people themselves and not society as a whole. Although I semi-agree with what you're saying, I feel as though society as a whole still has an influence in how technology is perceived in a global scale. If only a select few believed the envelope was a true advancement, would it really be considered progression? Or does a majority have to believe so? And where do you draw the line? Just some questions to think about :)
|
|