I thought that Lisa Parks brought up an interesting argument about the constant need to upgrade digital technology and the ways that technologies are made to be obsolete or out of date. In some ways this can be related to the Fordist movement where more working class were able to be hired on an assembly line, receive higher pay for labour jobs and also stimulating more consumerism. In terms of the Fordist movement, meant that more working class people were attracted to industrial jobs because they are paid more and because there are more positions.
The individualization of assembly line jobs created more jobs and also improved production of the business. This production meant that the business grew, which in turn could be reinvested in the business. Employees were earning more money and more able to sustain the consumer economy that the industry is producing. Therefore, supply and demand sustained each other. It seems that this cycle is relevant to the constant evolution of technology. There is a rising need for technically savvy employees, more funds to pay employees, more individualized jobs, more production, more commodities and finally more middle-class people to purchase these products.
The re-creation of some computers, cell phones and iPods creates more jobs for computer engineers and also a new market for consumers. Unfortunately, the need for new media is not necessary, but advertisers market its necessity. Consumers’ willingness to purchase new technologies, which are simply rebranded and changed slightly each year, is a result of the manipulative tactics of advertisements.
Things like Culture Jammers and the Yes Men are exposing these forms of capitalist manipulation. Culture Jammers are emphasizing the role of celebrity endorsement in branding commodities. While the Yes Men are highlighting the unreliability of advertisements and corporations, as they easily pose as representatives for dominant corporations.
I agree with you but I don't necessarily agree that we seek "technologically saavy" employees. I think if you look at computer or phone production it is quite fragmented in its assembly. One person is in charge of the keys, one person the monitor, etc. So maybe we seek employees who can USE technology, but in its creation I think we're just as Fordist as we once were. In the Fordist era each person was responsible for one aspect of production, just as now one person is responsible for overseeing one part of production.
ReplyDeleteBefore this course I had never heard of the phrase "culture jammers". After watching the Yes Men clips and reading your post, I think it is great that these "culture jammers" are coming to light (at least for me anyways). I think celebrities are used to endorse products just so producers of these products can have a way to make their product appear better than those similar to it - they do that by linking it to a famous face in hopes that consumers make that connection.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Marie and Kait, I think employers do seek more techno-saavy employees, especially in the designing stages. The people who come up with how to create something (designers, engineers etc) do have much schooling and expertise to bring to the table. While the creation of a new product may be seen as a manipulation of capitalism, many of the individuals who are involved in the process are not marketers but skilled engineers and technologists who, like us, are excited about researching and creating ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think Sophies argument that workers are “excited about researching and creating ideas” is a very fundamental component of de Peuter and Dyer-Witheford’s article Empire@Play. Workers performing immaterial labour are subject to exploitation as their work is often considered to be leisure; furthermore, the increase of immaterial commodities exemplifies the transformation of capitalist society, where there is a shift from Fordism to Post-Fordism.
ReplyDelete