tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994474.post6789552562953003552..comments2023-05-20T05:38:46.704-05:00Comments on LIS 810: Uncovering Information Labor: Discussion topics for the Modernity and Technology ReadingGreg Downeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09154543464555817869noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994474.post-6725600937339531642007-01-30T07:32:00.000-06:002007-01-30T07:32:00.000-06:00I agree that, as concepts, modernity and technolog...I agree that, as concepts, modernity and technology are obviously distinct. In my previous statement, I was rather trying to say that I don't understand the approach the authors are trying to combat: I simply do not see how technology could ever be studied without taking modernity into account and vice versa. It looks like we'll have a lively discussion today in any case!Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468786710545356701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994474.post-85650094666802390152007-01-29T23:51:00.000-06:002007-01-29T23:51:00.000-06:00I thought that the distinction between modernity a...I thought that the distinction between modernity and post-modernity was not that unclear in these readings. But I do question whether the two are actually separate from one another in contemporary society as it relates to technology. The modern and the post-modern seem to both be present in contemporary thinking about these issues, and in actuality. Thats'what I thought these theoretical approaches were about--wrestling with notions of a division between the modern and postmodern that don't hold. For me the notion of co-construction is very useful--shaping and shaped by.<br />Along with the importance of context. Interesting to see that these authors think this is not done very much in technology studies, because it seems that this is really important.The article on surveillance was a good example of co-construction, just too short, really just skimming the surface of something really interesting. Barbara (not yet able to post, but I seem to be OK to comment)Waldenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06633339962190872816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994474.post-46146255323808270172007-01-29T20:21:00.000-06:002007-01-29T20:21:00.000-06:00Anna wrote: "For example, the idea of modernity an...Anna wrote: "For example, the idea of modernity and technology being entwined in a complex co-constructive relationship [. . .] seemed self-evident, making me wonder whether or not I entirely understood the purpose of the author’s argument."<br /><br />rick h. wrote: I'm with you. Either I missed something, or the central argument regarding the co-constructive nature of the relationship between technology and society calls for a big "Duh!<br /><br /><br />I think that it only seems like an obvious relationship because the authors had laid it out as such. <br /><br />How exactly do you define technology, and why is it related to modernity at all? The inventions of hieroglyphics and writing predate the modern age, and I would make the claim that these inventions qualify as technologies. <br /><br />Also, although the authors make the attempt to temporally categorize the modern age, they pay little attention to geography. A modern age is ubiquitous by definition, but technology is not. That is, not all places are saturated with the same types and levels of technology. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that micro-level analyses are common in technology studies. <br /><br />To conclude, modernity theorists are doing the best they can to generalize about the entirety of an age. Some would argue that there may not be an adequate method of generalizing about technology to an entire age, but only to very specific situations. These situations could be seen outside of a definition of 'modernity'.Nathan Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10974101256160947257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7994474.post-21083052533452449942007-01-29T13:54:00.000-06:002007-01-29T13:54:00.000-06:00Anna wrote: "For example, the idea of modernity an...Anna wrote: "For example, the idea of modernity and technology being entwined in a complex co-constructive relationship [. . .] seemed self-evident, making me wonder whether or not I entirely understood the purpose of the author’s argument."<br /><br />I'm with you. Either I missed something, or the central argument regarding the co-constructive nature of the relationship between technology and society calls for a big "Duh!" --not that I didn’t learn a great deal reading these chapters. It will be interesting to see how others respond here and in class. <br /><br />Thinking back on work in Writing Studies regarding the power of literacy, Scribner and Cole, for instance, concluded in their study of the West African Vai: "our results are in direct conflict with persistent claims that ‘deep psychological differences’ divide literate and non-literate persons" (Scribner & Cole 1981 : p251). What's at issue is the power of technology, in this case literacy, to change a society, specifically, literacy as a precursor to rational thought. And many subsequent literacy studies have found that people will take up literacy for their own purposes. Writing isn’t a stand-alone technology or practice; it complexly interacts with culture across time and space. But then, perhaps this work was developing simultaneously or coupled with work in modernity and technology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com