Literacy Technology and Money Capital
In Ohmann's Literacy Technology and Money Capital he talks about the use of the word literacy and how technologies, and more specific, computers are bringing change to this concept. He argues that the computer has done little to change our social class structure, and if anything has given the capitalists more tools to increase their monopolistic power. While his view is on the far left of political theory, I do believe that to some point computers have changed our societal class structure and definition of literacy. For one, what is computer literacy? I strongly believe that you cannot use the word "literacy" to define being a person skilled with a computer. Literacy denotes that if you do not obtain it, you are of a lower class than others who are literate. Yet, if someone doesn't use a computer are they really of a lower social stratum, are they less of a person, are they less intelligent? I read once that former President Clinton only sent a few emails during his entire term in office, and he had a secretary write them for him. Yet, he is obviously of an older generation, I believe you would be hard pressed to find a CEO of a large company who doesn't use email today, but as Ohmann points out, his computer literacy may be far lower than someone working in the engineering department as a technician.
Also, he does have a valid point in stating that computers and technology are the products of corporations and monopolies. So, as true with anything else we must question their statements such as "Computers will change your life" for these corporations are profit driven. Although I would argue that the benefits have outweighed the risks with the usage of computers. For one, the ease of communication has improved, and the media world, once a monopoly is currently undergoing a huge transformation with the onset of blogging and youtube. It has changed so much that the very definitions of traditional worlds like media, literacy etc are being called into question. I myself believe that while it is true corporate and government organizations have been allowed to probe deeper into our social lives, we ourselves have been able to see deeper into these organizations as technology has highly increased transparency in almost all stratus' of society.
Also, he does have a valid point in stating that computers and technology are the products of corporations and monopolies. So, as true with anything else we must question their statements such as "Computers will change your life" for these corporations are profit driven. Although I would argue that the benefits have outweighed the risks with the usage of computers. For one, the ease of communication has improved, and the media world, once a monopoly is currently undergoing a huge transformation with the onset of blogging and youtube. It has changed so much that the very definitions of traditional worlds like media, literacy etc are being called into question. I myself believe that while it is true corporate and government organizations have been allowed to probe deeper into our social lives, we ourselves have been able to see deeper into these organizations as technology has highly increased transparency in almost all stratus' of society.
posted by Jimmy at 1:51 PM
16 Comments:
I agree with James on the subject that, older generations don't know how to use the computer as much as newer generations." When I thought about how President Clinton hardly used e-mail because he doesn't know how, I think of my parents trying to use the computer. Sure my mom can type, probably faster than me, but it is almost as if she's "computer illiterate". She takes forever to navigate through web sites, struggles with printing things or anything else associated with our printer/scanner/copier, and really doesn't know how to do too much on the computer in general. Then I think about my grandmother, who basically curses the computer when she comes over, and won't even sit at the computer desk if my mom wants to show her something on the internet. So I believe that "computer illiteracy" does exist, it doesn't denote you to a lower social class, or make you a lesser person, but just states that you are not skilled with computers.
I agree that the term "computer literacy" is just bad. Atleast, the real definition of it is. But we have created our own definition of literacy, and made it to be the idea of lack of skill. It is definately something that occurs with older generations, because they haven't been exposed to it as much as younger generations. Many of our grandparents, and even our parents use computers sparingly because they are unclear on all of the help they provide us.
I agree with everyone so far that the older generations either don't understand how to use a computer, or simply don't want to. My mom is fairly good at using the computer but when it comes to the technical aspects of it, she gets completely frustrated and just walks away from it. I've noticed with my generation, we are more likely to look deeper into whats wrong with a computer or website than just give up on it. My grandparents are a whole different story. My grandpa had a typewriter and asked me if there was anyway he could get ".com" on it. He didn't have a clue about computers at all, nor did he really want to know anything. He was content with his news television stations and radio.
I found this article was a little hard to read because it wasn't easy to tell if the author's was the opinion given, or one of the many other authors he cited. I agree with the fact that the definition of the word literacy is being called into question. There are so many new technologies today that we can become 'literate' of. I believe that there is more than one type of literacy these days. It's not to say that if you are not computer literate you aren't book literate either. That would be like us telling our parents they were illiterate because they couldn't use a cell phone quite as well as us. Sometimes what a word means chan change over the years, and this is one of them.
I agree with James about computer literacy. You definitely are not a lower class if you cannot or just don't use a computer. The example with Clinton is a very good one because obviously he was the President and we would not elect someone into office that was of less intelligence. Another thing is that we were talking about in class yesterday, that computers have taken over the roles of some everyday life skills. Like the cell phone and how it stores all of our numbers or the computer can while saving them so you don't lose them. This cut down alot on memorizing numbers or having a handwritten address book. I know I do not memorize numbers anymore and I have gotten locked out of my apartment and really wished I had a number that I call all the time.
I also agree with James, it's funny how we say, "Oh he's just computer illiterate..." when in reality maybe that person can function just as well and maybe better without a computer. I know my sister calls my dad that, however, she was the one who was about to die when her computer crashed and all her information was on it. Yet my dad, has all his information all organized in folders, the "old fashioned" way and really has no way of loosing all his information. After reading and discussing this article, it makes me think, are we really progressing in soceity with the increasing technological advances or are we just disabling ourselves even more by depending on them?
While reading this article, I had a lot to think about. Some of the points that the author brought up seemed crazy, others really made me think about technology and where is today and where it is going for the future. When he talks about computer literacy I had a lot to argue with. Everyone is illiterate at something on the computer. You can be someone that is really good at searching things online, but doesnt know how to type using all of your fingers. Is that literate? Another interesting point that he brings up is that eventually computers will run people's lives. I know I could do fine without a computer, some other people wouldn't be able to function for five minutes. Overall I thought that this article was a little out there, but some good points were brought up to think about.
It is hard for me to see the cons of computer technology, mostly because I do not use it that often. I use the computer to check my school email in order to stay up to date on my school work. I also use it for music and communication with other friends. I never find myself obsessing over a technology to the point where I could not go without it. I believe that it is up to the individual whether these new technologies begin to harm them.
your benefits of the computers today are still based around the idea of a computer literate person. If the person is computer illiterate like the article was talking about, the benefits can be zero.
I would agree with Jon that there is such thing as computer illiteracy. The world has decided to improve technology through time and people either got on board the technology train or did not buy a ticket. People have a choice to be computer literate or not. Right? I feel that not everyone has that choice. In our capitalistic society, we try to get ahead of the person next to us. Every person in our country does not have the opportunity to get on a computer at a young age to start learning programs. Increases in technology do not make someon less of a person but it does set people apart from one another. This separation creates a big step between the uppper and lower class.
I was especially interested in the social concepts of this article. I think we can all agree that literacy is a social status indicator. If you can't read or write, it is assumed you are from a lower class. Does this theory carry over into technology literacy?
Although I don't think less of people who are not familar with the computer/Internet, I do get very frustrated. When I explain something to my mom, and she has no idea what I'll talking about, I definitely get frustrated. I feel like she should have some understanding of things like YouTube, Facebook, the difference between texting and IMing...etc.
Social stratification is something that will continue in our society. Is technology literacy a factor in determining your social status?
I think we do look at someone who is computer illiterate as lower on the social stratum. I was recently in line at Borders buying a book and the person in front of me was about my age and was asked by the cashier if he wanted to sign up for Borders' emailing list. He replied "I don't have an email address." The cashier gave a chuckle in amazement, "how do you survive?" I thought to myself "yes, how does he survive." everyone in this society past a certain age mark is expected to be computer literate regardless of their background. Not to the degree that we do with illiterate people but we do somewhat look down upon those who can not use a computer.
I think that computers and technology surounding them have generated gaps between specific groups across our country. The authur touches on the gap between classes in the United States, and to be honest I would agree that "computer literacy" and class may have some correlation if they are not directly related. Another group that a gap can be eaasily seen is the gap between younger and older generations. Overall "computer literacy" of my generation is no doubt better than that of my parents generation. I can see these gaps are slowly going to close, but its a gap no doubt. There is a definate learning curve , but I am not sure that its a bad thing to have this gap. Learning computer technology is on going, some are exposed early and others take a while to get involved.
I think that it is interesting to think that corporations are the ones who provided consumers with personal computers, and convinced us that every home would be better with one. When i take this into account it seems that the corporations and computer companies are deciding who is considered "computer literate" and leaving out a whole group of people who cannot afford computers. This makes literacy exclusive to a certain economic status of people.
Although I don't think that it has quite happened yet, I do believe that eventually, in fact, very soon, not having basic computer skills will define people as being of a lower social status. Sure, you can find examples that present contrary information now, but we are only at the turning point of this phenomenon. As Generations X and Y become older, we will become a generation of senior citizens who have grown up on computers. Not being able to use computers, then, will be almost as bad as not having a high school diploma.
I think it is scary to think that technology can lead to an increase of divorce but i think this extreme that he made this comment. I think it is quite a leap to make because correlation doesn't not mean causation.
Post a Comment
<< Home