Technology, communication, and dissent

Mixed signals at twilight
Thursday I’m guesting in Paula and Chris’s Summer Scholars class (Talking About a Revolution: Dissent and Freedom of Expression in Today’s World). I’m being brought in as a “tech head” to talk about how technology plays into these questions, so I’m going to jot down a few thoughts.

First, dissent (or at least effective dissent) fundamentally requires communication. If people wish to change things, they presumably have to convey their dissent in order to make a difference, raising awareness, explaining the issues, and recruiting support. Second, the mechanics of and opportunities for communication have and continue to be defined by technology, and the rapid changes in technologies certainly affect communication, and consequently dissent.

Consider, for example, McCarthy and Murrow a la Good night and good luck. McCarthy used the technology of Congress (and I use technology extremely broadly here) to create his bully pulpit and communicate his ideas. Murrow, in turn, used his access to the still young technology of television to communicate his alternative view. Similarly, the Dixie Chicks can use the technology of music recording, radio, and public performance to object to Bush’s policies, but at the same time large media conglomerates like Cumulus Media can ban the Dixie Chicks’ music from their 300+ radio stations, potentially limiting the impact of that dissent.

So to understand the impact of technology on dissent, we have to think about how they affect our communications. Key, though, is to think about who a technology allows to be a speaker, and who is forced to be a listener. Who does the technology empower, and who loses opportunities? Jerry Mander, for example, encourages us to

Make distinctions between technologies that primarily serve the individual or the small community (for example, solar energy) and those that operate on a scale of community control (for example, nuclear energy).

So, are the internet and the web the great savior of free speech (and dissent), or shall just another controlling arm of corporate and government interests?

Discuss.

Related posts

But what about “Moon Unit”?

2007 Byte Bash - 41
WeatherGirl tipped me to an Observer article entitled “Names really do make a difference“, and I keep wavering between “Oh, surely not!” and “Well, duh, that was pretty obvious”. Apparently giving a girl a “girlie” name significantly reduces her likelihood of studying math and science:

Both subjects [math and physics], which are traditionally seen as predominantly male, are far more popular among girls with names such as Abigail, Lauren and Ashley, which have been judged as less feminine in a linguistic test. The effect is so strong that parents can set twin daughters off on completely different career paths simply by calling them Isabella and Alex, names at either end of the spectrum. A study of 1,000 pairs of sisters in the US found that Alex was twice as likely as her twin to take maths or science at a higher level.

The (highly speculative) causalities are the reasonably obvious ones: Seeing names like “Barbie” or “Breeze” on the class list or application form brings beaucoup baggage to the party. This is hardly a win, especially since the patriarchy already ensures that females already have plenty of baggage when it comes to science and math. It’s also telling, if not entirely shocking, that giving boys certain names can have similar effects. Seeing “Bubba” on the football roster might elicit a snicker, but likely no surprise; seeing “Bubba” at the math league finals, on the other hand…

So it would seem that some parents have a fair bit to answer for:

‘A name is part of an impression package,’ said Mehrabian. ‘Parents who make up bizarre names for their children are ignorant, arrogant or just foolish.’

In the case of the Zappa family, I’m voting for “arrogant”; Frank certainly wasn’t ignorant.

No tag for this post.

Related posts