Sorry about the delay; there was a miscommunication!
The article that I found the most interesting this week was the McIntosh article "Mobile phones and Mipoho's prophecy," which we actually discussed in my Invitation to Anthropology class last semester.
I find it fascinating that the Giriama people in Kenya are so tuned into the use of mobile phones and texting, spreading western culture to a part of the world that would have otherwise had little exposure to it. Still, this promise of globalization carries with it a threat: the loss of original identity and tradition amidst this freedom to take part in the creation of "global flows" (McIntosh 337) that connect people and cultures. An example of this can be found in McIntosh's discussion of the code-switching used in Giriama texting - that is the mixing of the English and Giriama languages to communicate through this medium. On one hand, this phenomenon is indicative of a certain freedom of expression provided by such technologies. On the other, it can also be viewed as a potential loss of self. McIntosh ties this with the communicative immediacy associated with texting.
Still, I think McIntosh fails to recognize the other side of this. While texting does provide us a direct, concise, and immediate way to communicate, it also provides a certain distance and anonymity, as does any for of digital communication. For example, some Giriama youth admitted to using texting as a means of feeling modern and proving that they understand, appreciate, and are a part of western culture. This is a lot of the reason that they use code-switching; the mix languages and abbreviate words as "a means of 'showing off' that is 'modern,' 'developed,' 'fashionable,' 'Western,' 'dot com,' or a 'town boy'" (McIntosh 342). They consciously use texting and the freedom of expression it gives them to convey something specific about themselves, whether that trait is actually true to them or not.
I guess my main point of discussion is this: I think we can all agree with McIntosh that texting allows some sort of freedom of expression. However, what part of texting is the root of that? Is it the fact that we can easily get into contact with people quickly and efficiently, allowing us to express ourselves right in that very moment? Or is it that we are able to think more about what we say and how we phrase/spell it? Can it be both?
Jessica DeBakey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I agree with Jessica,
In today’s world, technology has evolved to the point where we can get messages and mail instantly. When I was younger, I would go home and get on my computer to check my mail. Texting was just in its infancy. I remember sitting on my computer for hours on end with my AOL account chatting with friends. Now almost everyone has a phone. Families are disconnecting their house phones and using only their cell phones. I think the last time I called someone’s house phone I was asking my friend Jack to come over and play at my house and I was in grammar school then. Now I will call someone on his or her house phone only after not being able to reach them on their cell. Texting is an easy and fast way to get your message/point across. Texting is all about giving and receiving information. When there is no need for small talk, texting gets right to the point. I believe that texting can be bad in that some messages are often interpreted differently then they were intended. When talking to someone on the phone, you can hear the tone of his or her voice. There are times when I have read a text from someone and it sounds like they are being very negative or mean and find out later that it was not meant to be that way. Sometimes people use capital letters and things like smiley faces to show how they actually feel when texting. I have heard people say that “my boyfriend/girlfriend broke up with me through a text.” They certainly told that person how they felt at that moment and they were right to the point but I think this is just bad. I feel that breaking up through a text is the laziest and worst way someone could break up. To me, it is a total insult to that person. The person doesn’t even have the decency to look into the others eyes and tell them to their face. Maybe they do it because they want to avoid conflict and not get physically or emotionally torn apart by the other. Anyone who uses a blackberry phone knows that people can see if the other person has read it. This can cause a lot of controversy between the two people. “I saw you read my text, why didn’t you answer right away?” There is pressure for you to reply within a couple of minutes or you better have a good excuse of why you did not reply.
When reading McIntosh article "Mobile phones and Mipoho's prophecy," I along with Jessica, actually discussed this article in Invitation to Anthropology class last semester. I remember reading about people from Giriama, Kenya texting. They would text in English but had their own language or style of texting. Because there was a charge for how many words were in a text, the Giriama would uses techniques to shorten the text such as “vidze msena, y u ddnt do the trip. Which meant, What’s up my friend; why didn’t you go on the trip?” (338). It’s funny now because people shorten words many times simply because it seems way “cool” and is easy. There have been court cases involving texts where there have been threats in messages such as, “I’m going to kill you…lol” and the judge did not know what LOL meant. By now I am sure they have figured out that in means “Lots of Laughs or Laugh out Loud”
-Chase Winter
I agree with both posts in finding the McIntosh article very interesting. However I found all three articles to be interesting and relevant to our own society as well. As both previous blog posts also commented, there seem to be some connection that all of these articles address. I found that in the McIntosh article, that our culture also adopts slang and new language through the frequent use of the mobile phone. Also, I found it really parallel to our society that McIntosh explains that this widespread use of the cell phone in Kenya is a positive AND a negative thing. We also use the phone to connect and socialize, but we also use this 'openness' to negatively effect ourselves and others. This argument could indeed be made for various forms of medium (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) I also really connected with the Barendregt article in that Indonesian society has various uses of the phone that we share, like 'sexting' and 'mobile pornographic content'. I found it fascinating to see that even less developed countries use the mobile phone in similar ways, particularly ways that deal with our identity and social makeup. MacDougall's article also highlighted the open door technology can give us to do bad things covertly. This for some reason made me think of 'To Catch a Predator' on TV. I know its a ridiculous and awful show, it shows the explicitness and criminal ways that people can use through technology, the phone, computer, etc. Overall, I agree with these articles in their messages of how the mobile phone and technology can be used for good and bad, and that identity can be both enhanced and shared, but also exploited and disintegrated.
I also agree with Jessica in regards to McIntosh’s article. Texting has morphed into its own unique form of communication that is completely distinguishable from communicating with another person via phone or even via e-mail. To answer Jessica’s question, I feel that texting can be an instant means of communication that allows people to say what they are feeling in a short, concise way. However, with this new platform comes more opportunities for miscommunication. While reading McIntosh’s article I could not make sense of most of the sample text messages without the translations. This was not only because half of the words were not in English but because the abbreviations of some of the words did not make sense to me. Texting has become a language of its own with the use of abbreviations such as LOL and BRB. Also, text messages can easily become misinterpreted because you can’t hear the way a message is being said. For example, if the sender of the message is being sarcastic, the sarcasm that would usually be recognized in verbal conversation is not relayed through the text message, which could leave the receiver confused or evoke an unexpected reaction. It is in this way that text messaging both benefits our society by providing a new and immediate means of communication but can harm the way people communicate through these new obstacles of carefully having to choose the words we use while texting.
Also, a funny video came to mind for those that are interested regarding this very issue of miscommunication through text. Here is the link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FukzyfIqYf8
In the case of the Giriama, it seems as though a shift away from Kigiriama and the transition towards English represented a sort of freedom for the youth, and yet a negative depiction among the elders. The relationships with which each of theses languages were associated, such as formality, domestic matters, and playfulness, all play upon the idea of the thought that goes behind texting, which relates to Jessica’s question. I feel like both ideas that she suggests are plausible. I “practice” both, but the ease of contact is more so because I can communicate without having to talk directly to the person about petty matters. I will say that I find myself now, more than ever, writing out the full words in my texts so as to not forget about how to spell them. As simple as this may seem, I feel like it is a reality more in our times than ever before. All of us can probably think of a time when we accidentally used “text lingo” in a formal paper. From another angle, this also makes me think about the countless times when I actually hear people say “LOL” or “SMH”, instead of actually laughing or shaking their heads. I think Chase brings up a good point about AOL and AIM, because I could honestly consider this the originator of texting.
In terms of the topic of miscommunication, the article referencing Indonesia states,“You can text things that you cannot easily say: It is more anonymous and there is a disjunction between the meaning and the intention of what is being conveyed (Barendregt 167).” So, it appears as though this form of expression could be considered intentional at times (although probably much rarer). It is as if you are purposefully leaving the interpretation of the text up to the receiver, and will later make a claim as to what was really meant; this could also allow you to change your own intention behind the original text. The link that Leslie posted was a hilarious depiction of such thought that goes behind sending a text.
In response to the McIntosh article, I believe that using different languages among youth while texting is a way of creating a more informal social network that is distinct from the social networks of their elders. The youth described in the article have made their own networks to express their thoughts with friends that elders may not understand. Although this article is about youth in Kenya, I think it can definitely relate to the beginning of text messaging when it was first becoming popular in the United States. I remember my parents and many of the parents of my friends did not know how to text when texting first becoming popular. Text messaging was almost like our own world that parents could not be a part of because they were not technologically savvy. This is also seen in Barendregt’s article where he talks about the black market for selling phones and the popularity of sex text messaging. Whether it allows us to communicate faster or allows us to think about what we say, it can be powerful and create mini social networks. It allows people to not be “present” in what is actually taking place in their real lives. It can prove their knowledge for technology or that they are “with the times.” Although the MacDougall article points out the fears that this can bring within societies, I think that in today’s societies anxieties about the telephone have subsided and people are optimistic about the new connections and social networks it can create.
Globalization through the use of the mobile phone is a fascinating and almost unbelievable occurrence in the world today. It is incredible to think that a small hand-held device can have such an impact on countries such as Kenya and Indonesia. Previous bloggers have brought up very valid arguments for the positives and negatives for this mobile use in such countries as these. Connecting themselves to the rest of the world is definitely a positive thing, but there are negative effects of this connection. Loss of identity and nationality is one of the negative effects of the widespread use of the mobile phone. Also, it can be a major distraction from small, everyday activities to large-scale plans. As well as these distractions, cell phones can help with the spread of knowledge and even charitable acts. I remember that during the Katrina disaster people could text to a certain number and money would be donated to the people effected in the situation. Cell phones can affect the world in such positive ways, regardless of the negative affects they can cause.
I have always been stunned at the widespread use of cell phones. A few years ago, my family and I went on a trip to India. We visited some rural areas that were some of the poorest places in the world. In the midst of all the filth and grime, people were talking on their cell phones. It was truly an incredible sight. Some people would be taking a break from packing feces for fuel in order to talk on their phones to others. The imapct cell phones have on the world is staggering and hopefully we can achieve more good than bad with them.
-John Kaestner
Mobile communication has allowed our society to become more integrated, advanced, and unified. However, as the other blog posts have noted, mobile communication, and especially texting, have created a certain amount of disconnect between the sender and the receiver. As Belinda noted, the transition toward “English represented a sort of freedom for the youth, and yet a negative depiction among the elders”. In this context, I would argue that texting represents a certain amount of freedom from the restrictions of parents and elders. As opposed to a phone call to a land-line that must go through an elder before reaching a child, texting allows direct, personal, uninhibited communications between individuals. In this respect, it represents an effort by the younger generation to branch out and construct a unique identity.
In reference to the Barendregt article and the topic of miscommunication, I agree that texting as a medium allows the receiver to impose their own thoughts and impressions upon the message received. As other blogs have pointed out, without the benefit of hearing the sender’s voice, specific intonations, or pauses, it will always be possible to misinterpret a text message. However, I feel that what is lost in terms of personal connection, is made up for by the mobility and interconnectedness that mobile texting offers our generation.
-Daniel Gergen
The consumer-level uses of telephone technology presented in the Barendregt and McIntosh readings contrast the history of telephone companies’ public image and marketing strategies in America as presented by MacDougall. However, I found the following quote in MacDougall’s article to represent an argument that was also present in the Barendregt and McIntosh readings: “In the publicity for AT&T’s national network, as in the wire thrillers, awestruck descriptions of nation-spanning machinery were juxtaposed with seemingly contradictory celebrations of individual empowerment.” In the histories of many nations, or at least in the histories of the United States, Indonesia, and Kenya, advances in telephone technology have highlighted and defined a noteworthy relationship between the influence of big business and the development of individual empowerment. As telephone companies expand in influence and profit, so to are individuals given the communication necessary to reach and influence networks of people across a wide geographic area. In Indonesia, advances in phone technology have led to the modernizing and adapting of Muslim culture via SMS. In Kenya, cellular phones have been used to both spur and quell political uprising. These examples lead me to ponder the following topics: to what extents do telephone companies have any sort of control over the means by which the media they produce is utilized? Who determines appropriate and innovative customs of utilizing telephone technology, and how are these practices of utilization encoded and spread throughout a community, and even across communities? What is the more powerful social and cultural influencer- the reach of big business over its telephone consumers, or the individual empowerment that telephone- and specifically cell phone- ownership grants citizens?
I couldn’t help but laugh after every commercial about MTN shown in the last class because they all struck a chord with me. I remember when the mobile phone was still fresh into Nigeria. Its rise in Nigeria epitomized what Barendregt tagged as the middle class “serving as role models”. If you had a phone, people looked at you with respect or envy. I was only ten years old when my parents decided to buy me a cell phone. It was a bulky Nokia phone that would have made me the subject of ridicule in this day. However, at that point, I felt like the bomb. None of my friends had this device and a part of me just wanted to show off. I remember once playing my ringtone and pretending to answer a call. Yes, it was childish and immature, but then I was a child, and in some respects, entitled to be immature. My parents had purchased for me to bridge that gap between us. Although I was always away at boarding school in a different state, I could keep in touch with them at the click of button. In essence the phone had become an equivalent to mobility, bridging the distance between my parents and I. My parents were quick to embrace the use of the cell phone as it facilitated normal conversation. One person spoke, waited his turn and then the other spoke. You could hear the inflection in the other’s words, you could feel the emotions, even though you could not see them. It was only one step away from face-to-face contact. This was not the case with text messages, however.
In the McIntosh article, we see that the elderly are wary of the use of cell phones, even going as far calling them a “breed of witchery”. This works well with my parent’s thoughts about texting. When I once asked my mother why she refused to text me, she proceeded to give a lecture about texts being impersonal. She had learned to equate communication with the spoken word and somehow texting did not fit into this definition. Like many, she was in a hurry, wanting to get the answer to her question immediately. With texts, you could not predict when you would get a reply. However, with calls, if the person picked up, you were home free. Furthermore, you could pass the same message with a call in a quarter of the time that it would take to text. All these factors made calling desirable. It is true that texting gives a sort of freedom of expression, but that might not be a good thing. One example that comes to mind is that, devoid of emotional contexts, texts are more likely to be misinterpreted. Furthermore, if time is of the essence, then the ability to think more about what we have to say, often posed as an advantage to texting, might actually be a disadvantage because it wastes precious time.
-Emmanuel
Jessica’s point about Giriama youth using texting as a “means of feeling modern” is really interesting to me. It’s almost as if they are using the medium of a text to illustrate or demonstrate their own personality and status. In many ways, using the text in this way is in stark contrast to using the text message as a form of communication. For them the text is not only about communicating with another person but also communicating something about their status to another person. It is almost like they are ‘wearing’ the text as Americans might wear a watch or a pair of earrings—as a statement about themselves. I say this because an accessory someone wears cannot really aid in communication, but it does communicate something. Wearing a fancy watch communicates the fact that you are wealthy, for the Giriama youth, texting communicates that they are modern. The concepts of texts as a symbol that communicates and as a form of communication are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is still possible that texts are used as efficient forms of communication; however, it may also be that the actual communicating done via texts is distorted for these youth because of the mechanism by which communication is occurring. What I mean is that if the act of texting communicates a somewhat dishonest message about the ‘moderness’ of a person, does that prevent any real, honest communication from happening via the text? At the very least, it seems it must hinder the ability to communicate, in the same way talking in a funny voice might (i.e. the voice itself might color the way my words are interpreted in ways that are not intended, just as the symbol of a text message may inadvertently color the way that text is interpreted).
Marshall McLuhan, a well-known communication theorist coined the expression “The medium is the message”. I’ve been continuously thinking about this quote in this class, particularly the television week and for this topic. By this, McLuhan meant that the way that you receive the message (e.i. television, radio) effects how you interpret what is being said. While reading the articles by McIntosh and Barendregt, I realized that McLuhan’s message also applies to telephone communication. Barendregt mentioned the difference in the use of language depending on the situation and whom the conversation was directed to. “Although the polite kromo level is generally used in Javanese classic literature, the use of the more information ngoko level in contemporary text messages is an obvious choice: SMS is an intimate practice and text messages are mostly exchanged between friends” (166). I found this to be similar to the way we communicate via text message in the United States. Different medians of communication here (face to face vs. texting) dictate the use of language. This was also mentioned in McIntosh’s article where “most text messages were written either entirely in English or in English and Kiswahili, with rapid flipping between them” (341). Using English was a sign of one’s modernity. This made me think of the way young Hispanic people communicate in the United States and Mexico. Text messages often include the use of “spanglish”, which is alternating a mixture of English and Spanish words.
Although this was not necessarily mentioned in any of the readings, this week’s topic also made me think of the authenticity of face-to-face interactions versus text conversations. During a face-to-face conversation, you expect the person to whom you are speaking to immediately respond. That person has very little time to think about the string of words that they are using to respond and their facial expressions say a great deal about their intentions. However, when the form of communication is over email or text message, the person is able to choose when, how and what to respond. They are given the opportunity to think about the words they are typing. Although more thought may be put into a text message, the authenticity of the conversation is lost. Expressions like sarcasm and empathy are lost in the text.
On another note, I found MacDougall’s article very interesting. I never thought of expansion to be threatening, but after reading about some of the Wire Devil stories, I understand the concern that people had. I also liked how MacDougall mentioned how the telephone created an imagined community and “the railroad, telegraph and telephone offered physical representation of those expanding networks of commerce and exchange that linked section to section, tied livelihoods and fates to distant markets, and seemed to suborn once independent communities to unseen forces and unprecedented conglomerations of wealth and power” (720). This seems to be a common theme in this course: the power of modernity and media in creating means for exchange and unlimited forms of communication and interaction.
Post a Comment