In the article “Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?” Marx’s argument appears to be that yes, technology can lead to progress but an important question he poses is that where will this progress lead to? . The article focuses on the evolution of technology and how it was used to propel the people in the revolution and how it’s separation from social change. For this response, I want to focus on the question Marx poses at the end. I found it to be interesting because it appears to always be the assumption that if a country or a group of people are not up to par with technology then they are not progressive. However, this article provides an opportunity to question what is advancement and to think outside the box.
I am not implying that technology is bad but the assumption that technology in general is progress and that “… the rest will take care of it self” (pg 8) is something to be looked at. I thought it was a great a opportunity to look at today and see where technology has brought us. What is progressive? I want to look into something we al use in everyday life, something that probably every single person has is a cell phone. I personally am not attached to my telephone; I leave it everywhere. However, I, like almost everyone in class, know a person or persons who are forever tied to their telephone. So something that I notice, is when my friends and I are out eating , everything’s good for a while. Everyone’s talking and joking around. Then, it only takes one person to just check their phone and pretty soon everyone’s checking their phone. And then our conversations revolves around whom texted who what, what someone posted on facebook etc. Telephones have changed the way people socialize. I am not saying cell phones are bad but to be aware how it has changed or lives is interesting to me. Cell phone are important, my parents stress to me how I need to carry my phone and have the ability to make an emergency call, if an occasion should arise. But every year there is always something new coming out. Everything made simpler and easier are the ads for these new telephones. I don’t know how many IPhones have come out.
Something else, conversations can get awkward. We can all be talking in a group and laughing and then, someone gets a text and begins a furious conversation with the person on the other line. A word was created for this, which I learned my freshman year of college, it is called cupcaking. This is an example where technology affects how we live and the new terms that arise from new occasions that have been created by technology. I used a simple example but if a small device such as a cell phone can impact society this much, a larger technological advancement can affect more. So building on the idea that “…the rest will take care of itself” is that it’s not that it will take care of itself, rather it will adjust and the adjustment is not measurable. I thought this article was great opportunity to step out of the box, the idea that technology equals progress and look in. So judging a country or a group of people by their technological progress is questionable if we cannot look at ourselves and see what technology has actually advanced and changed. I just used the cell phone as an example.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaisy, I like that you talked about technology through the simple use of a cell phone and the negative effects they have caused because I would bet everyone in our class uses a mobile device and can, therefore, relate. You’re definitely right that there are far too many people who rely on their cell phone and your example of a friend stopping everything in their social setting to receive or send back a text message is very problematic. You explained how it can change a friends mood in seconds and essentially ruin people’s precious bonding time all together. This scenario reminded me of an article I read in the New York Times called “Antisocial Networking?” The article, undoubtedly, claims that the use of cell phones as well as “social networking” sites like Facebook are actually causing a lack of friendship in children’s lives. “The question on researchers’ minds is whether all that texting, instant messaging and online social networking allows children to become more connected and supportive of their friends — or whether the quality of their interactions is being diminished without the intimacy and emotional give and take of regular, extended face-to-face time” (NYT 1). Of course there are arguments from the proponents of social networking sites who explain that Facebook, specifically, is very beneficial for shy children, however, shy children also need to develop social skills. Laura Shumaker perfectly explains how Facebook causes a lack of development and improvement on social skills. The fact that her 17 year old son John was becoming “skittish about face-to-face interactions” instead of gradually improving shows that there is a clear and negative correlation with social networking sites (NYT 2).
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Hilary Stout. Antisocial Networking?. 30 April. 2010. 9 March. 2011
.
For some reason, I can not post the web address. But it is a great article if you have tim to check it out so again, it is in the New York Times and just search "Antisocial Networking."
ReplyDelete