Cell Phones in Asia
Hjorth used South Korea as a good example of a participatory culture in his relation to gaming and asked the over-arching question of the role that mobile media and urban gaming can play in bringing new challenges to new media practice and theory. One thing that caught my eye was the conceptualization of what "mobilism" and mobility are today. Because of mobile communication, we may be forced to reconsider traditional definitions of these terms. Technology must somehow be fused with these terms. Before, being mobile may have meant having the ability to travel by way other than foot, or being able to relocate if needed; these are things that before hand would not have been possible. However, with the rise of technology and in this case, mobile communication, we can now, and may, conceptualize these terms in a more modern sense. When I think of being mobile, I immediate think of having the ability to "do things" on the go. Those things may include surfing the internet, sending an email, or talking to someone (clearly all things that can be done through mobile communication). Also important to me in this paper was the concept that modern mobile communication such as texting is sort of a "rebirth" of earlier forms of intimacy. Now, we may text or give a gift on Facebook rather than write a letter, give a tangible gift, or send a postcard. Hjorth called this a remediation of earlier forms of intimacy. Thinking of it in this context makes sense to me. As time passes, we must "modernize" how we do things and take in account the social practices of the society. Plus, I personally would rather send a text message than have to write out a letter and send it through the post office. Finally, the concept of user-created content (UCC) is questioned in Seoul by a group called Dotplay Telecom. The capitalist ideologies about UCC and global mobile media are critiqued. To them, this form of hacking created democratizes the mobile phone and puts power/control in the hands of the user. First, I'm not sure if they are actually talking about hacking as I know the term. Second, if they are talking about actually hacking into people's phone just to provide them with a sense of power, I'm not sure if this is the best method. I'm mostly concerned about privacy issues rather than the empowerment of the individual.
McLelland starts off with the proposition that many reviews of the Asians' use of cell phones simply refer back to Western uses and that there is a need to concentrate specifically on how this region uses cell phones. The author does understand that there are still, in his review, some limitations; referrals are mainly to Japan, Korea, China, and the Philippines and not much towards other places including the very 'wired' Australia. An interesting portion was on the use of the word Keitai, translated to us as the mobile phone in Japanese. Although it is translated as such, there are cultural differences that need to be stressed. These may include its design, function, uses, and meanings. The Keitia is "an artifact located in specific national context" (p. 127). This, to me, is where the importance comes in of distinguishing regional differences of the uses of cell phones. I still think that the major uses of cell phones extremely similar across the globe, but the way the specific culture views the mobile phone and thinks about it can help to make some concrete differences of cell phone uses. Finally, ironically, the devices thought to provide us with safety and the feeling of security can actually bring harm to us. In cheap transit through the Philippines, petty theft and robbery may come to those who openly show and use their cell phones. Additionally, cell phones in Asia also grey the boundaries between public and private.
Lastly, Bell deems China to be in the "age of the thumb" for two reasons. First, because as the name suggests, text messaging is extremely popular (the most popular) in China. Secondly, because mobile technology is ushering in a new era in the history and culture of China. Bell identifies 4 uses of cell phones in China: 1) objects for communication (yes….) 2) objects for information (yes…..) 3) a form of controlling your identity (ok….) 4) and as sites of anxiety and control. I understand these uses but see them as being the same for Western societies and any other regions that use cell phones.
The readings were informative but I wasn't able to notice and regional differences of the uses of cell phones. So my over-arching question in my brain is; Are we at a point yet that we are able to make clear distinctions about regional uses of cell phones??