[iDC] One Laptop Per Child - MIT/Negroponte Initiative

[Brad Borevitz]

quoting from a puff piece in a rag with questionable journalistic standards
... and that quote from some marketing exec whose assertion is that ³women¹s
influence² is somehow almost twice what some industry association estimates
... ugh ...

but the biggest problem here is the facile equation of consumption with
power. if these assertions can make any sense at all, they have to do so
deep inside the bankrupt ideological fortress of consumer capitalism.

i believe it was mark bartlet in that thread without a subject who
complained about the uncritical techno-boosterism that plagues this list.
some of the stuff in this thread is a prime example (especially from steve).

at base, what fatima and sam are arguing is that technology is not neutral;
it seems like this has to be the starting point for a critical discussion of
its social and political impacts. technology can never be neutral since it
comes from, is produced by, is designed in and for the benefit of those who
own the means of production and distribution. and secondarily, it is
consumed and used within social and political situations that mark access
and use by existing structures, tendencies and limitations. these are
givens.

but within these givens, as theorists like de Ceretau help us to understand,
people have a great deal of latitude in bending things to their own purposes
‹ of intervening tactically within the strategic givens of a power structure
that is other to them.

all of these facets have to be considered to understand or anticipate the
possible impact that the OLPC could have. there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the kinds of claims that have been made for the project. and
at the same time, i don¹t think it makes sense to dismiss the possibility
that there might be unforeseen possibilities that actual use ­ especially by
those with the least power ­ might bring. but that is not the same as
embracing the clearly simplistic and ideologically suspect discourse of
³empowerment.²

and stupidest of all, is a the idea of empowerment through consumption ­
consumption is what enslaves us. and shopping has been a rather traditional
occupation for women in the gendered division of labor. it is hardly
revolutionary for women to be relegated to that role for home electronics as
well. as electronics become more and more associated with the domestic
realm, its rather consistent with normative alignments of interest.

b

On 12/31/07 9:07 AM, "Steve Borsch" <steve at iconnectdots.com> wrote:

> Quote: "Women now influence 90% of consumer electronics purchases, from the
> type and look of the big-screen TV to the color of the iPod speakers for the
> living room, Best Buy says. The Consumer Electronics Association estimates
> their influence is less, but still significant and growing. It says women
> influence 57% of purchases, or $80 billion of the $140 billion spent on
> consumer electronics this year."
> 
> Hmmm....perhaps you should reframe your perspective to the reality of the
> power of women with respect to the consumption of technology. If all this tech
> is male-created and by its very nature exclusionary of women, are you implying
> that women are a bunch of sheep uninvolved in tech design, unable to create
> their own technology and so powerless as to subordinate themselves to men and
> are going ahead and buying the technology anyway? It seems to me by the
> numbers in the quote above that *women* are the dominant force driving the
> consumption of technology and therefore perhaps technology is more feminine
> than masculine?  I'm seeing that tech is being increasingly designed to
> celebrate the feminine and cater to women (though all the flipper, flappers
> and dweebezarbs built into most technology -- exceptions being what Apple,
> Bose and even the software in the OLPC provide -- are far too geeky and geared
> for the technoweenie males that love to fiddle with features).
> 
> Here's the article URL:
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-12-20-best-buy-usat_x.htm


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20071231/4c508e39/attachment-0001.htm