This week I'm writing about Deborah Lupton's article in the course reader.
I'm not sure of everyone else's reaction to the opening paragraph but I found it thoroughly contrived and desperately seeking personified analogies between the computer and humankind. Not to say that Lupton's observations are untrue; but they are certainly characteristic of most technology and definitely not limited to the computer.
Nowadays, many appliances and machines have faces, voices, smiles and sounds. Cars, fridges, microwaves, and in particular mobile phones are all prime examples. I think Lupton's opening argument is probably more suited to a generalised characterisation of modern technology and appliances than to the computer specifically. The aspect of feeling the computer as an extension of the self goes likewise for most ergonomic technology. A knife or fork for example feels as much like an extension of the body as a computer keyboard (and similarly allows the completion of tasks in shorter time and with more success than without the technology - imagine carving a roast with your bare hands...).
As for involving oneself emotionally with a piece of technology (or indeed any inanimate object) the computer is really no different to those other technologies I mentioned earlier (in particular the mobile phone and car) although we might also include photocopiers, vending machines, ATMs, uni-card autoloaders...(all definitely high on the list of machines that cop a torrent of abuse when they disobey our commands or fail to respond). All of these are definitely dealt with emotionally when they don't work according to their specifications or are unable to assist us in our daily tasks, however, the communication ends there. We rarely thank a computer or phone or ATM for completing a task. We recognise that while a human has designed and constructed each piece of technology, no amount of thanks or praise of that particular machine can improve our service next time or make the machine 'feel' anything. While the computer may 'greet' Lupton with a 'cheerful sound' this interpretation of a mechanical process (obviously aimed at serving this idealised interaction) is merely a subversion of the true banality of daily routine.
Moving on, I disagree again with Lupton's characterisation of the computer - for what other appliance has not also been anthropomorphically portrayed and advertised?! Think of countless examples of cars being shown to have the human qualities of being able to predict behaviour, respond to changes in stimulus, and remember settings. I remember very clearly a long running advert where a man is shown to hug his beloved Mazda (and is berated by his wife for it: "Steve..!") before being hugged back by the little red vehicle! A similar degree of anthropomorphism occurs with whitegoods and mobile phones. It's merely a marketing strategy overanalysed by scholarly writers.
I'll post some more thoughts later but thought I'd leave off with a little video clip (the one on the right) to a song called "Computer Love" by band TZU from their album of the same name. (Not my usual taste in music but an amusing song and clip all the same...)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think Craig raises some interesting points in response to Lupton’s article. Considering the article was written eight years ago, obviously there have been a number of technological advances in that time, and also changes in the way we now view and use technology. I agree that Lupton’s description of the way we interact with technology is now a generalization of modern technology and appliances (I remember when I bought my first iPod, welcoming it with a “hello” when the screen came to life, looking up at me like a baby chick).
However I do feel we do treat computers differently to other appliances, just the fact that we say they contract “viruses” adds something quite significant to the way we think and talk about computers, as opposed to other appliances. Also, I think the way we interact with computers sets them apart from other technologies. Although our microwave can tell us to “enjoy our meal” and the washing machine beeps to let us know it’s finished, we don’t interact with these technologies the way we do a computer. It is because of the things we use a computer for, such as contributing to whole online communities, that allows us to feel we have a more personal relationship with the computer, hence the analogies of human characteristics.
Hm. Posted with the wrong gmail address the first time.
Moving on, I disagree again with Lupton's characterisation of the computer - for what other appliance has not also been anthropomorphically portrayed and advertised?
I agree with this point, its human nature, especially among females to personify most things you come across (I say this because my male partner once said to me "I understand why you've given your computer a name, its for networking. Why the hell have you given it a personality?").
Anyway, computers, cars, kitchenware (I hate the toaster), I find can and often are in my house, described as tempermental . I'd say it goes further then that though, other things we get attached to are also often personified. My cat Dizzy got her name through this, my pet rat (Albert, for you animal lovers) is often also described this way. This continues through to other object around, such as the 'evil vine' as I like to call it, which only grows to cover our walkway. This vine however does not have a brain, nor a 'intelligent' agenda that any science can detect! I know this yet I still call it this.
I suspect there's only a real difference in the way they are personified because, unlike most tools, from spades through to walkmans/discmans/ipods, computers serve are a much more complex machine then these, serving a much wider variety of purposes, from typing assignments, to socialising to net banking etc... While this is a point Luptons article does seem to acknowledge, she doesn't appear to realise this may be way we give it that extra piece of personification not seen attached to other objects.
That's a very cute song :)
AGREED! I have no idea why the GPS system used in cars is always produced with a female voice. Why can't they give that thing a neutral computer-ish tone?! It is humanized and now talks like a female. To cater more to the male population of drivers, perhaps? Or perhaps it is made to sound more human to create a better sense of "interaction" when being used.. It feels so human, the GPS can even rethink your route if you've gone the wrong way or felt like taking a short cut. I was so impressed by that when I went on a roadtrip this weekend down to Swan Valley. Its practically like having a human-map-reader sitting right next to you in your passenger seat, isn't it?!
I agree with you Joanna when you say that we do treat computers differently to other appliances. The fact that you can sit on your computer and chat to a family member or friend on the otherside of the world means that you are emotionally connected to it. When a computer crashes on us how do we react? I know that I am always upset and lost without it - think of all the work, photos, music and videos that are contained inside our computers....I know that my photos have sentimental value to me.
Sarahmarie - I think that the female voice in the GPS devices is there for a reason. I think that female voices are comforting and less agressive. People relate female voices to their mothers - we may not be thinking this at the time but somewhere deep down we are comforted by female voices. I think by using a 'neutral' voice it would be less personal and much more of technology in your face. The companies want you to establish a relationship with that GPS so that you use it. Maybe so that one day you may not be able to live without it...
Speaking about GPS systems, my parents just bought a new car and I was fiddling around with its GPS the other day. I found that in this system, you can actually change the voice to a female or male voice, depending on your preference I guess. Must say that both of them are really calming (almost like a voice you'd hear on a meditation CD or a DIY yoga track) but I guess this raises more questions about gender in technology.
I found it a little strange having a male voice giving me directions, not really sure why. And no, I’m not a feminist. In the limited sci-fi movies/ TV series I've seen, I can remember most of the "control centres" or "computer brains" (what are they called?), having female voices. Anyway, this links to the term “motherboard”, which can be another indication that we do see technology as having associations with femininity, and perhaps maternity. And cars, another technological advancement that assists in our every day lives – is/was also (perhaps more often back in the day) referred to as having a female gender…
Post a Comment