Final Reflection

This class has taught me a lot about viewing the world around me with skepticism. Any technological artifact can be deconstructed and analyzed to find the true meaning behind it’s origin. One of the early examples in class, the bridges in New York, is a clear demonstration that even objects that seem as mundane as a new means of transportation to Long Island can have tangible roots in inequality.

I think one of the most important lessons I’ve learned is that it is very difficult to create blanket policies which will create equality in all situations. Rather, it is much more important for us to carefully follow the progress of technology, and legislate more specific and detailed occurrences. One example of this in class was when we talked about nuclear technology. While nuclear power can greatly help third world nations, it is dangerously close to giving them nuclear weapons, and so the necessity of nuclear power compared to the likelihood of giving an enemy a very powerful weapon must be judged on a case by case basis.

In an interesting side note, in a podcast I listen to I recently heard about a company who is now making self-contained nuclear batteries which do not use the same process of nuclear power as power plants, are a lot smaller, are designed in a way that has no chance of meltdown, and also run at such a hot temperature that it is nearly impossible for anyone to tamper with. The nuclear batteries are said to be enough to power 20,000 homes for 5 – 10 years, at which point the company services/replaces them. From what I heard, the technology isn’t quite ready yet however solutions such as this could be the next step.

If nothing else, this class has left me with an optimistic perspective on the future of technology. As long as people are active and pay attention so technical inequalities can be discovered and changed, technology is a progressive medium for social change – and should we allow it – any inequalities it is capable of creating, it is also capable of fixing.

Reflection Seven

This week we are talking about nuclear technology and the inequality between countries with and without this technology. The use of nuclear energy as well as weapons contributes to this discussion. There are a couple points which jump out at me, one of them being that countries without nuclear capabilities see attaining the technology as a matter of respect and part of joining the First World. The second point of interest is that nuclear weapons follow nuclear energy, such as in Iran when the United States gave them the energy technology and they proceded to adapt the technology.

To begin with, I am unsure as to why nuclear weaponry is so highly valued, my reasoning being that any country or entity that utilizes this weaponry, with the possible but unlikely exception of the United States and certain countries in Europe, will immediately be outcast by many governments in the rest of the world and likely dealt far more damage than they would be able to accomplish themselves. We are at something of a nuclear stalemate, while there are problems with an actual treaty being drawn up and agreed upon by the nations of the world, I do not see circumstances where a country or group would be able to use these weapons without terrible consequences. In my mind this makes nuclear weaponry somewhat irrelevant, and shifts the focus to the use of nuclear energy. I think that while nuclear waste is a problem, for developing countries a greater problem might be the current complications with oil, as well as the use of coal. I do not have any exact statistics, but barrels of waste are something that we can store until a method for disposal or even some sort of recycling/usage with other products is discovered. Compared to the alternative of coal, which is directly contributing to global warming and the greenhouse effect as it is used, I think there are merits for establishing nuclear energy within developing countries. I think Third World countries could be better off currently by not having to deal with the economically complicated oil.

The author talks about peace education. I find this very interesting, and am disappointed to reflect upon my own schooling and find a distinct lack of this form of education. Perhaps if nuclear energy could be given to countries along with some sort of stipulation and curriculum for mandatory peace education. As with many things, I feel that education is the answer here, if we are able to simultaneously bring countries into the First World with nuclear power, as well as help to educate and reduce physical conflict, perhaps we would be able to grant nuclear energy and halt the desire to create weapons of mass destruction simultaneously. I am not sure of the feasibility of such a plan, however I think it all comes back to education. If we invest in the education of other countries, perhaps we do not need to directly give them nuclear technology, rather the means to understand how to do it themselves.

Reflection Six

This weeks article addresses DNA testing in legal cases, and whether or not it promotes equality. Determining the equality of DNA testing is a complicated matter which brings to rise questions about the nature of equality within the legal system itself, such as the reliability and aptitude of public defendants and how the actual verdict of a case may be determined by the skill of the legal counsel rather than guilt or innocence.

There is both an optimistic and pessimistic way to view DNA testing, according to the article, the optimistic viewpoint tells us that some technologies, such as DNA testing “level the playing field” for those in court cases, whereas the pessimistic views DNA technology as an “enhanced means of social control.” Each side makes it’s own argument, the “level playing field” ideal allows for evidence based on science that removes inherent bias and can help the jury decide on a verdict without prejudice. The pessimistic view questions the nature of the system within which this technology is used, and raises the question of whether the technology will contribute to furthering systematic bias.

Personally, I agree more with the optimistic view,  and that the technology will contribute to more equality. Inherently, the technology itself is not biased. It is simply a means for deriving evidence. In situations where a defendant is innocent, I don’t see where DNA testing could be anything but beneficial as it can do nothing but further the case for innocence. When a party is guilty, it can help establish this without a doubt. As the article points out, DNA testing only applies to a certain minority of cases, and even when it does apply it is often underutilized. I think this is more of a statement about the speed at which technology progresses, and perhaps the willingness of certain law enforcement departments to adapt to new technolgy.

Cole’s analysis of DNA databases is worrisome, as open ended searching allows for law enforcement to find partial matches to DNA samples, which could lead to false arrests and even convictions. Familial searching utilizes this open ended searching to investigate blood relatives of a suspect. The article states that familial searching would “place more than four times as much of the African-American population as the Caucasian population in the national database.” This large inequality highlights the dangers of the DNA database and the need for careful implementation.  

Another context within which to view this dispute is in cases dealing with rape. Having benefits as well as drawbacks, DNA testing is useful in certain scenarios of rape, however in instances such as acquaintance rape, the dispute is not the identity of the suspect rather whether consent was given. A feminist, Holmes, worries that the use of DNA testing will reduce the credibility of eyewitness testimony, which could result as being damaging to the victim.

Holmes also worries that if DNA testing is considered to have solved the rape problem, social and systemic methods for mitigating rape may be undermined, such as measures which equalize the “social, economic and political status of men and women.” In conclusion, the author finds that while superficially DNA testing seems equalizing, deeper analysis demonstrates intertwined race, gender and class issues which do not have a simple answer.

Reflection Five

This week’s article, written by Susan Cozzens, addresses the nature of inequity and inequality within technology through the view of four political philosophies: libertarian, utilitarian, contractarian and communitarian. Each philosophy has it’s own positive and negative aspects. Before making this comparison, she quotes Amartya Sen and defines inequality. Sen’s view is that there equality is multi-dimensional, and each observer values different dimensions on different levels. By creating equality in one dimension, other dimensions become inequal, which is why finding a true equality is difficult.

Each particular philosophy has it’s own contribution, libertarian allows for rights of property but no other rights are addressed. Utilitarian relies on a “trickle down” effect where the raising of the upper class will eventually benefit all lower classes, however it does not consider the growing gap between upper and lower classes, and therefore does not have provisions for inequality.

Contractarian highlights “three ‘layers’ of distributive mechanisms” that apply to scientific and technological policies: “market exchange, market-oriented stimulus through public funding, and public research programs targeted at helping the least advantaged.” Cozzens goes on the illustrate that while there may be a three fold policy that is all inclusive, it does nothing to address growing inequality.  

This brings us to the communitarian philosophy, which puts the main focus on the community, meaning morality is based on the benefit to the community rather than the individual. The political philosophy also tells us that there are no standards for distributive justice, similar to the reading last week by Latour which emphasizes moral decisions being made based on individual circumstances rather than prior moral assumptions. One highlight of communitarianism is their warning against the polarization of wealth, that is the difference in wealth between the rich and the poor.

The conclusion of the article tells us that all of these philosophies have something to contribute to science and technology policy, and that a composite approach that includes all of these philosophies in certain aspects is necessary.

Outline

Media and Inequality: An Overview

I. Introduction to Media and Inequality – Brief history, introduction to discussion on white patriarchal media, address problems and shortcomings

II. Theme – The paper will address the lack of “outsider” influence on popular media, from print news to feature length film, from gender inequality to racial inequality, this paper will show inequality in media and provide enough insight for the first time student as well as enough depth to keep a scholar interested. I haven’t found anything that is a complete overview of current issues dealing with media, such as New Racism and media illiteracy, and decided to write something myself. The actual point is education and how important it is to the development of society, people need to be taught to be aware of the things that they see, as the media around us is trying to get us to consume, and isn’t working with us, but rather with our wallets. On top of this, the majority of media created is for one particular consumer, the white male. I want to address this, illustrate how it manifests in various forms of media, and present possible solutions. I want this paper to be accessible to any reader and to lay down a foundation of current media and inequality issues for my own reference in later works. This is a technology and inequality class and I’m looking at media as a form of technology, media as a whole is biased, and I wish to confront this bias in my paper, rather than focus on the minute detail of specific occurences, which can be taken out of context. Popular media such as newspapers, magazines, television, film, music, and the internet will all be under review, and I hope to create a lens through which these media can be viewed skeptically and rationally.

III. Frameworks – Social Constructivism, Determinism, Technological Momentum. This paper will particularly address these frameworks, constructivism in that our technology (media) progresses due to society’s needs, determinism in that the media created is the result of prior types of media, and technological momentum in that while things are currently inequal, we are making progress for equality and constantly moving forward in this sense, not backwards.

IV. Sources  – Stewart Hall, various academic articles by accredited scholars Gorham, Larson, Heider, Chen, Bramlett-Solomon, Chen, Billings, etc. full works cited will be provided with the paper, all sources will be accredited and published.

Reflection Four

Technological momemtum, or the progression of technology over time is a combination of technological determinism and social constructivism. Hughes tells us that a “technological system can be both a cause and an effect; it can shape or be shaped by society.” There are certain technologies which upon their development have reshaped society in a way that cannot be reversed. Hughes’s example was the automobile, and how it has changed the way cities are developed. The Phoenix area is a good example of this, as it has been built spread out allowing for more traffic. Other examples I can think of is the pager and eventually the cell phone. Before the inception of these devices, it was much easier to disconnect oneself from social networks. This has shifted, however, in that now the majority of people can be expected to be available or will be shortly, speeding up our interaction and communication. I live in a house and do not own a land line telephone, with the existence of broadband a regular telephone has no use for me, I use my cell phone for all the important phone numbers in my life and it is the way I can expect people to communicate with me. I think perhaps as the youngest generations become older, land line telephones will become even more obsolete, as the only use I can think of would be for faxing, however even then certain cell phones now include the proper connections to use them for transmitting this type of data. I think it will be interesting to see how the progress of personalized, individual communication continues.

Third Reflection

Based on the lecture and discussion in class, the progression of technology is complicated and difficult to predict. In the instance of the bicycle, the original design is deviated from for social reasons, despite being a less effecient device. Once the social necessity for the bike vanished or became obsolete, so did the bike from mainstream culture, and the design reverted back to something much closer to Da Vinci’s original.

This illustrates an interesting phenomenon in technology, where function can take a backseat to form and aesthetic value. Being able to discern between technologies that are used for form rather than function is a useful skill, and is similar in nature to media literacy. By being skeptical of technologies and determining which values they favor more, form or function, we can wade through technology that exists purely for superficial reasons and technology that most effeciently handles a specific task. This element becomes more complicated, however, in certain circumstances. Returning to bicycles, an example would be bicycles that adhere to Da Vinci’s original design, however are also stylized or otherwise decorated for aesthetic value, such as the cruisers one might see around campus. While the device itself exists in it’s most effecient form, there are many derivations which appeal to varying social perspectives.

A student getting across campus doesn’t need a racing bike, and a bicycle racer would not likely want to use a cruiser. This sort of adaptation diversifies the use of a particular technology, however also forces us to ask another question about existing technology we see – if a technology does appeal to form rather than function, has the technology reached it’s most effecient point where variation is purely superficial, or has the form of the technology so overridden the function that it has lost effeciency?

Second Reflection

As was demonstrated in class, it is difficult to argue against the inequality created by technology. While the issue of the bridges being too low for buses is brought up, it is easily countered that already existing means of transportation, ferries, can still be used for public transportation. It can be said that the overpasses are not meant to restrict bus travel, but rather to allow for an easier commute for those who have their own cars. The group defending the bridges brought up how the money saved from building at decreased elevations would be able to be used towards a metro system in the future which would eventually save more money, even though there is no evidence to show this was something the original designer of the overpasses intended.

Despite the valid reasons for having the bridges built in the way they were, restricting the type of vehicle to personal cars during a time when they were affordable mostly to only middle to upper class white families created a large inequality between who would and would not use the new bridges. As the original builder, Robert Moses, has had his intentions made clear by his biographer, he exemplifies a built in form of inequality that comes with technology.

It brings up a couple questions, such as where else have systematic prejudices been created? Are we aware of them all? My experience studying racism in the media has shown me that race is still an issue that has yet to reach equality due to the very nature of media which are marketing to the largest possible demographic, and is another example of systematic inequality. This type of inequality has been called the “New Racism” by some scholars and is deceptive because the general public assumes that civil rights movements of the past have achieved equality when the inequality has just become systematic and less obvious to those who are unaffected by it.

First assignment

Inequality and technology have a complex relationship. As technology improves, it begins to replace jobs previously done by skilled laborers, and simultaneously opens new jobs for skilled laborers having to do with those particular technologies. This trend increases the importance of education, which is only available to those with higher incomes, this creates a cycle where uneducated laborers become obsolete yet do not have the resources to receive higher education. I have seen the effect of this on my parents, who’s lack of a college degree only allows them access to certain jobs, which are mostly based on their prior experience, and they are constantly competing with college graduates making it very difficult to advance in their fields.

While the development of technology is important, it’s also important that as a society we allow careers for those who do not have the resources to attain higher education, and also make higher education easier for lower income brackets to attain. A couple solutions come to mind, perhaps programs that utilize an obsolete skilled laborers talents while providing them with an education at the same time.

Technology is rapidly progressing, however access is limited, and there may be areas where otherwise outdated skilled laborers can apply their talents and also train to operate the technology that surpasses them. I think a cohesive utilization of talents which are slowly becoming obsolete and education based compensation, as long as monetary compensation is enough for workers to live on, will benefit our society and help to bridge the growing gap between income brackets.