GSquared (12/18/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
GSquared (12/18/2012)
patrickmcginnis59 (12/18/2012)
I don't see why we can't talk about our social and behavioral responses to technological advances without having to redefine perfectly functional words like the word "technology" itself. Is it really that hard to discuss relationships between areas of interest and how they combine or not without doing this word redefinition?I missed where we redefined that word.
From the editorial:
Ever since reading Neil Postman's book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, I've been interested in broadening out the definition of technology to include far more than computing, and to include things like the various emotions in our register as a species, games, rituals and the like.
That's not actually a redefinition. That's a reversion from a redefinition. Technology = computers/electronics is a very recent redefinition of the word.
I don't believe the word technology has ever been limitted to computers and electronics, I can't recall anybody using it that way, the only way I could possibly think it works like that is because computers and electronics are used practically everywhere, and the non electronic tech is just not being waived around in pop culture like all the digital stuff is, ie., computers and digital tech is often the technology being discussed and it often just sort of defaults in. This does not stop me from discussing "optical technology" for instance, manufacturing technology, etc...
He's just reverting to a definition that has existed and been in use for centuries, over a definition that's really only been in use for a few decades.
I don't believe he's reverting to any definition that I can think of. I like the typical dictionary definition just fine. He did mention that he'd like to expand the definition.
"In the culture I'm in, living in the USA, technology mostly refers to computer technology. The last thing on people's minds when they think of technology are things like holidays and celebrations. But they are. They're social technologies designed to heighten social interaction, mark the passage of time, create anticipation and so forth. "
This is more of what I don't agree with. In no way would I view holidays and celebrations as being a technology. Now don't get me wrong, if this actually catches on, would I have any choice then in the matter? Of course not, just like in the 1980's I did not call unsolicited email "spam", nor would I start calling unsolicited email "spam" based on a single fellows definition unless it was an understood inside joke of some sort, or if a monty python script had it (and I had seen or heard it of course).
Theres not even a compelling need to call holidays and celebrations "social technologies" in my opinion. These sorts of new invented terms and usages do happen, and whether or not they become common in usage really depends on how society "votes" so to speak. Along those lines, consider my mild protest a bit of a vote on the issue. Certainly there are other votes here too. I will see for the next few years if his use pans out.
Just like if I call a certain packaged meat product "spam", you shouldn't consider that a redefinition, just because we've adopted (from that definition and a Monty Python skit), a newer definition meaning unwanted commercial e-mail.
I can offer some help here. "I am having a spam sandwich." This has context, you can read this with some certainty that I'm not putting unsolicitted email between two slices of bread.
Now, "I'm getting spammed like crazy!!!" What comes to mind?