I want to address Panagakos and Horst’s point on the problematic nature and addictive qualitity of technology for migrants. This article discusses the rate in which migrants are adapting to forms of technology as it’s an effective and instantaneous solution to communication with their homeland and family. It appears that Horst and Panagakos are suggesting that migrants are turning to technology as their only connection with their homeland. The need for this communication is much more urgent and necessary for this group of people than with many others. Therefore, “this new sense of connectedness can create problems”, where signs of addiction, panic, and paranoia set in with the absence of their cell phones or internet.
According to a South Korean study, a migrants connection to technology instills a constant worry and sense alienation and isolation when these technologies do not work. The “temporary removal causes social dislocation and a perceived breakdown of social networks” (112). Perhaps this reliance on communicative technology is an emotional investment in a commodity. This is a problematic because these technologies not only serve as a false sense of relation to their home, but their emotional investment in their products feeds a consumer market and can be instrumentalized to serve a capitalist strategy. Assuming that migrants are willing to purchase phones, pay for contracts and feed into the business of communicative technology, they are also sacrificing “potential proximate relationships” and a true integration into the community that they currently live in.
A desire to maintain contact with their homeland may interfere with opportunities for meaningful physical human interaction like eye contact, physical expression and therefore leaving them displaced from their environment. Outside of the apparent pseudo-relationship that migrants build through technology, there is a generation gap that limits these forms of communication to those who are technically savvy. Thus, communication is limited to family members who have the money to buy these technologies, live in an area that supports these networks and also have an understanding of modern technology.
Therefore, as much as communicative technology is celebrated as removing national borders and unifying the world, it further complicates the notion of true communication, forming true relationships with family in foreign countries and with a migrant’s current environment.
I think this argument could go both ways. Rather than looking at the way migrants use the internet to connect to their homeland, I want to suggest the impact new technologies have within these migrant nations. Many third world nations now have supported mobile connections. It is interesting to note that many still do not have land line telephone wires. In villages far away from cities, having a cell phone or access to the Internet is the difference between life and death. Having the capability to call for help is a new concept in many of these villages. However at the same time we do not want these mobile devices to replace the concept of community of the people in these villages. I think that within Western culture, whether native Canadian or a second or third generation Canadian, it is hard to separate ourselves from the fetish that is found in technological advancements. Maybe it is the way the products are advertised or our standard of living, but I don't feel as if we use mobile devices to stay connected with our cultural heritage, but more so to stay connected with the here and now, the latest gossip or news. I feel that these devices are very much about entertainment and leisure and not so much about connectivity, information and e-learning.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Kait! I think your observation that "perhaps this reliance on communicative technology is an emotional investment in a commodity" is excellent. After all, the Blackberry is often referred to as the Crackberry because of its "power" to make its user jump every time it makes a sound! Although I agree with Sophie that the arguments surrounding this technology can go both ways, it is hard to deny the impermeability of these devices into our lives. I think it these devices work to connect others, which is a positive thing; however, when technology is so pervasive that when one misplaces their device they feel "isolated", then there is a problem...
ReplyDeleteJust going off of Erin's point, about the power of communicative technologies as a means of emotional investment I immediately think of the Ipod. We become obsessed with getting the newest version, colour, or Gigabites. To have an original ipod is not enough, we must continually upgrade ourselves and our commodities and if not, we will appear to be technologically naive. These commodities are fetishes and in many instances we do not use them for e-learning or information OR for gossip or news but simply because we are addicted to distraction.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I oftentimes try to refuse the upgrades, as an act of defiance. But again this can only go so far, as Apple can refuse you access to certain features and such, causing you to choose between resisting change and having a functional iPod.
ReplyDelete