COM547: Mobile Technologies

I couldn’t help but notice the affirmative comparison that McLelland (2008) used for Castells et al. when referring to global culture and mobile technologies in relation to our class discussion and review of the same work.  Like our class seemed to agree, McLelland highlighted the fact that Castells et al. had difficulties in producing such an overview rather.  He continues to present great examples in how context is so important to understanding usage and meaning, which gets back to the point that once more plurality is important in discussion of culture and mobile technology.  A great example I don’t think we have yet examined was how Filipinos might prefer texting more for the privacy it affords compared to voice than the other possible factors such as value/price and ease of use.  And for the average Filipino user to send 8 text messages per day as the article states, that suggests to me that texting is not just for young Filipinos and the previous explanation of desired privacy stands strong.        

The first point that Hjorth (2009) made I didn’t fully agree with came on page 4 where the author references mobility and mobilism in relation to accessing the internet.  Hjorth states that “Accessing the Internet via the mobile phone creates a different sense of embodiment between online and offline co-presence than utilizing the stationary and bigger PC”, but I don’t think that fairly accounts for netbooks and small to medium laptops.  I am not convinced there is a different sensation in relation to mobility when a person uses a laptop to connect to the internet at a Starbucks than if they use their cell phone.  Nor would I agree that people surfing the net on their mobile phone are any more or less co-present than someone doing the same on a netbook.  I realize that Hjorth wasn’t referring to laptops or netbooks, but that just isn’t a fair comparison of forms of internet access.   Hjorth is not all wrong either, as that statement by itself is fine, but does not hold up when we look at the broader spectrum of devices able to connect to the internet.  I also think we could make an interesting comparison from how desktop PCs are/were shared devices in a household and how laptops and netbooks are individualized devices that offer some mobility as well.  Perhaps a question here is – does it matter what type of mobile (easily portable) device being used to connect to the internet when we consider online or offline co-presence?     

Hjorth was on target, in my mind, by highlighting how the mobile phone can serve as a symbol for the various forms of mobility (technological, cultural, social, political, and economic) within our global economy.  If Hjorth accepts that, then she should also accept a rewording that claims that capitalism is intrinsically and inevitably tied to any review of the mobile phone and social practices.  Is Hjorth right that the act of playing with mobile media (hacktivism or urban gaming) is proof of mobile media having become official players in politics and culture in furthering the postmodern movement?        

                Bell (2005) paints cell phones as communication and computational technological devices that are inherently mobile, very much able to be personalized, easy to use and cross many boundaries.   Yet Bell also defines cell phones as key players to cultural and social practices. 

Noticeable to me was the lack of seeing Asia as more than the southeast or pacific areas for the most part.  This was acknowledged by McLelland as well.  But southwest Asia (SWA) and some the remnants of the USSR should not be ignored.  SWA definitely uses cell phones and should have plenty of data for review in studies.  They also likely have a very different context for which to compare.  In general the week’s readings were interesting reviews of limited areas (in context of Asia) and may be easier to comprehend if compared to more at the same time.  Similar to when people try to learn a language I have been told it is easier to learn the third or fourth language as you are not stuck constantly translating back to the first and only contextual understanding of the word you are learning.  Can we better compare cultural practices once we better understand at least 3 significantly different viewpoints?