Running Head: RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE

Individual and Societal Relationships with the Cell Phone Heather MacLellan ETEC 511: Foundations of Educational Technology Instructors: Franc Feng and Stephen Petrina University of British Columbia Dec. 5, 2011

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE The cell phone is a pervasive part of North American society. The 2011 CTIA survey of

wireless penetration in the U.S. indicated cell phone subscription is at 103.9%, outnumbering the U.S. population (Brown, 2011). Canadians follow closely, with wireless coverage being offered to 99% of this countrys population in 2011 (CWTA, 2011). This proliferation of cell phones leads to questions about their relationship with our society and the individuals within that society. This paper will begin with an overview of how a technology such as the cell phone is shaped by our society and how it, in turn, shapes our society. The psychology of our attachment to the cell phone will be examined next and then the paper will conclude with an overview of some changes to public spaces brought about by societys reaction to the cell phone.

The Relationship between Technology and Society The examination of the relationship between technology and society remains a central one to the discipline of sociology (Wajcman, 2002 p. 349). One way of examining this relationship is through the theory of Technological Determinism. The main idea encompassing this theory is that technology is the most important cause of social change. This concept has been expanded to the extent that people believe that simply implementing new technologies in difficult situations will solve complex social problems. Since its creation by Thorstein Veblen (Chandler, 1995), Technological Determinism has infiltrated every aspect of our society. Although this theory has been refuted by many theorists, it has become so rooted in the social consciousness of the people that this pervasive understanding of the relationship between society and technology continues to influence decisions about allocation of resources in government, businesses, and school districts today. A clear example of the over simplification inherent in the

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE technological determinist view is the UK governments decision to guarantee educational equality by putting a computer in every classroom (Wajcman, 2002). While computers have value, it is not possible that their presence will solve all of the difficult societal problems that lead to inequalities in student education. Although Technological Determinism has influenced ideas in our society for some time, a growing body of work has evolved that is focussed on the idea that science and technology are

socially constructed, not technologically determined. Science and technology studies (STS) are centered around the concept that all forms of knowledge are affected by the society in which they develop (Kuhn 1970, as cited in Wajcman, 2002 p. 350) and technology is not an external, autonomous force exerting an influence on society (Wajcman, 2002 p.351). Instead, the development of technology and society are intertwined, both dependent upon the other. This combination allows us to consider the individual, social and cultural influences which leads to choices about the design of new technology and the technological content that society adapts. When reflecting upon our societys technology choices, it is important to point out that the best technological product will not necessary win out over competing products. Factors such as marketing, accessibility and public opinion may influence decisions about which technologies are adapted into our society. Further pursuing this concept would lead one to consider the idea that our culture shapes our definition of the best technological product. What one considers the best is dependent on many factors, including, but not limited to, the needs deemed important by individual users and the ability of a technology to satisfy those needs (Wajcman, 2002). An example is the choice between cell phones that run the Android operating system and cell phones that run the Iphone operating system. Both operating systems offer similar features but the Iphone platform offers

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE easier functionality with less customization. Conversely, the Android system is much more customizable, with more freedom to choose everything from type of keyboard to internet browser. This customization means less intuitive ease of use for new users, thus a higher

learning curve before the phone functions at capacity. It remains to be seen whether the need for instant functionality will surpass the need for user control and customization. In this way, social factors including choices about what is important and most useful to us affect our individual belief about what the best and the most efficient technological product is (Wajcman, 2002). Another example of this is the always evolving social value of saving time through increasing efficiently. For many years, people have explored ways to save time while increasing productivity and cell phone technology has evolved to fill this niche. In a world where work and time are both highly valued, society has adapted to cell phone technology by finding ways to use them as effective multitasking devices. You can, for example, stand in line and have a business meeting at the same time (McEwen, 2010). Advertisers have picked up on this evolving societal value. One recent example of this is the series of commercials from the Canadian network provider Rogers. In these commercials, good wireless connection is portrayed as a business asset and a personal triumph. One commercial in this series shows two men in an elevator. One man has lost his phone signal while the other is still able to talk and finish a business deal. The one who lost his connection looks embarrassed and envious of the man who maintained his connection. In this example, the best product is the one that can maintain a connection and allow a higher level of efficiency. The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), provides a model that, among other things, allows an examination of the role that relevant social groups play in determining the final form of a technology (Pinch, 1996). Each group might have a different definition of what the

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE best technology is depending on their needs. For cell phones, the user groups are as diverse as the population. Parents might define their needs and subsequent use in terms of connection to children, business people in terms of productivity, and educators in terms of teaching and learning. During development, product design can evolve to fill different niches based on user needs (Wajcman, 2002) and after production, individuals may choose to modify the technology to fit their requirements. Smartphones allow third parties to design apps that can be downloaded and installed to allow customization for many uses. Teachers are an example of one distinct social group who are beginning to find ways to adapt cell phone technology to fill the needs of their classrooms. As they use cell phone apps to meet these requirements, the use of the technology can construct a new social reality in the classroom. Many teachers recognize the importance of connecting with the parent community and are using cell phones to address this issue. A recent example is a newly designed teacher app. called Classdroid, created by John

McLear. With the application, teachers can take pictures of student work, connect a rating to the work in the form of stars and upload it directly onto the students password protected eportfolio (John McLear, 2011). In the Classdroid example, parents can now log into their childs portfolio, view newly completed work, and get a sense of their progress from the teachers rating. This satisfies the need to connect with parents but it also changes the look and feel of the traditional classroom by extending it into the realm of the web. As our society becomes ever more dependent on the cell phone, we interact more and more with them in our daily lives, both as teachers and as individuals. So, it becomes increasingly important to understand the psychological impact of the relationships that we have with these devices. The next section of the paper looks at several theoretical positions examining

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE the relationship that an individual has with her cell phone and then examines the impact of that relationship on our society as a whole.

Our Relationship with Technology

We can consider the mobile phone as our personal miniature representative (Katz, 2006. p.84)

Possessions become a large part of our self-concept. Product attachment theory, pioneered by Belk in 1988 (Vishwanath, & Chen,2008) goes so far as to say that possessions are extensions of self. Although they are physically separate from us, we feel that they comprise part of who we are because the things that we own become part of the meanings that we create for ourselves and help us to define who we are as people. The notion of self, that which we define as me, becomes interwoven with possessions, that which we define as mine. The extended self becomes a perceptual concept rather than a physical or physiological one (Vishwanath & Chen, 2008). Belk (1988) extends his concept of self extension beyond just the ownership of personal possessions and into the realms of persons, places and group possessions as extensions of self. These items can be thought of as being hierarchically clustered around the core self in concentric circles (Vishwanath & Chen, 2008). It isnt a stretch at all to hypothesize that the cell phone occupies a space in this hierarchical circle that is very close to its owner. When examining how we define which items are closest to self, Belk (1988) noted that objects that we consider as closest to self are those that we can exert control over, so that we impose our identities on the possessions, for instance learning a new skill. But also those that can control us,

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE the possessions impose their identities on us through cultural and normative influences (Vishwanath & Chen, 2008). The more that we believe we possess or are possessed by an

object, the more a part of self it becomes (Belk, 1988, p.141). The cell phone can occupy the role of both the possessor and the possessed. We are the possessor in that we have control of the look and usability of the cell phone. We spend a great deal of time personalizing it, paying money to purchase ring tones, screen savers and wall paper as well as the perfect case for its protection. As smartphone operating systems become more complex, we also spend a great deal of time learning how to use them and customizing the applications to create a perfect fit. In fact, it has been noted by Katz and Sugiyama (2005) that some users will give up functionality in favour of style and self expression (as cited in Campbell & Park, 2008, p.374). But, we are also

the possessed in that the cell phone demands our attention. When the cell phone rings or beeps, it is very hard to ignore. Turkle (2008, p.122) characterizes this possession by the device as a tethered self, reflecting that we are constantly attached to the always-on/always-on-you cell phone. This need for the constant connection to the cell phone is reflected in the anxiety that some people, particularly teenagers, feel when they are separated from their devices. Besides control, Belk (1998) uses several other forms of evidence to support his claim that possessions are a part of self. One of these forms is our reaction to a lost possession. If a possession is a part of self, loosing a possession through theft or casualty will bring about a loss of self and result in a period of grief and mourning. This observation can be seen in the way that users refer to their phones. People store important information on their phones and associate their phones with their brains. They experience a great sense of loss of self when something happens to their cell phone. When my Palm crashed, it was like a death, more than I could handle (Turkle 2004, p.18).

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE Another form of evidence that Belk (1998) uses is the literal extension of self, where a

tool can allow us to do things that would be impossible otherwise. The cell phone functions as a tool in many ways, allowing us access to multiple features that open up possibilities across space and time, thus making it possible for us to participate in events that our physical bodies alone would not be capable of (Vishwanath & Chen, 2008). A recent example of this can be seen in the spread of information through the use of cell phones and social media during the 2011 Vancouver Riots. People who weren't at the scene were instantly aware of the situation because those who were there used their cell phones to record and comment on the events as they were happening. In reading Belks work on possessions as extensions of self, it is not difficult to make connections from the theory of self extension to the relationship that people have with their cell phones. This close personal relationship is affecting many aspects of our society. In the next section, I will examine several changes that the cell phone is causing in our use of public spaces.

Changes to society The needs of our society are determining the direction that cell phone technology is taking. Peoples individual relationships with their cell phone and the ways that they are interacting with it is influencing new developments in how we relate to each other in our public spaces. These new developments are challenging our ideas about what constitutes acceptable public behaviour. Cell phone use in public space Use of cell phones in public spaces are changing our societys rules about how we interact with each other in parks, cafes, public transit and other community areas. Currently,

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE there seems to be no consensus on the societal rules for cell phone use in these locations. This confusion has caused the use of these devices to become a contentious issue for some people because there is a conflict between the social behaviour norms for use of public space and the social behaviour norms for phone conversations (Campbell & Park, 2008). Having a phone

conversation in an open setting such as a restaurant or a store forces other people in the area into the role of an audience. These bystanders have no choice but to listen to the phone conversations around them. Several studies have been conducted that examine the attitudes and emotions of the spectators caught in this situation. Fortunati (2003) and Paragas (2005) found that bystanders were curious about the conversations occurring around them and that, for the most part, they enjoyed passively listening. Conversely, studies conducted by Caporael and Xie (2003), and Wei and Leung (1999) found that people were generally irritated and offended by the intrusion that others forced on them. Over time, social negotiations between cell phone users and bystanders will result in more clearly defined social rules for cell phone use in public spaces. Another aspect of this phenomenon is the concept of absent presence (Gergen 2002), where people use the cell phone to tune out the events that are presently occurring around them. People on cell phones are physically present but, through aspects of body language and attitude such as turning away and diverting the eyes, people erect invisible barriers around themselves and show that they are not tuned in to the events occurring in their immediate proximity. Turkle (2008) points out differences in the body language of those having a conversation together and those conversing over the phone. When sitting in a cafe, two people together tend to lean in and connect through eye contact and gesture. Turkle (2008) suggests that this pose creates intimacy within the conversation and allows for talking with voices quiet enough not to disturb people at other tables. She contrasts this with the pose of those talking on

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE

10

the phone in a cafe. Particularly when using a headset, people on the phone tend to stare straight ahead and talk louder, behaving as if no one is listening. Even though they are surrounded by others, Turkle (2008) suggests that they maintain an illusion of privacy though the presumption that the bystanders around them treat them as anonymous beings. Individuals creating ways of being mentally and socially absent in shared spaces is not a new occurrence. People have used traditional mass media such as newspapers and radio to tune out of their surroundings for many years. The difference, according to Gergen (2002), is that traditional forms of media have a one way flow of information. Technologies like the cell phone intensify the effect of absent presence because they allow the user to interact in a two way flow of information. People are now focused on building connections through this two way medium instead of building connections in the physicality where they are located. There are many

examples of people ignoring those around them in favour of others that they are connected to through a cell phone. Consider conferences where people from all over the world gather to discuss a subject but instead end up focusing on technologies that allow connections to distant others. This tuning out may have long term effects on our definition and sense of community.

Conclusion This paper has explored the connection between society and the individual in the context of integration of cell phone technology. The process of social change begins with a need in society and a technology developed to meet that requirement. As the cell phone is integrated into society, it affects the individuals who come into contact with it, often becoming a close extension of self. Once technologies such as the cell phone are accepted by individuals, they open up possibilities for adaptation and change within a society. An example of this concept is is

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE how cell phone use changes the ways that we relate to people in public spaces. In this way, technology and society are interrelated in the development of a culture. References Belk, R. (1988). Posessions and the extended self. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168. Retrieved Nov. 18, 2011 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489522 Brown, B. (2011). Cellphone subscriptions outnumber people in u.s. Network World (Online) , doi: 08877661 Retrieved from

11

http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898526144?a ccountid=14656 Campbell, S., & Park, Y. (2008). Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 371387. doi: 10.1111/j.17519020.2007.00080.x Caporael, L., & Xie, B. (2003). Breaking time and place: Mobile technologies and reconstituted identities. In J. Katz (Ed.), Machines that Become Us: The Social Context of (pp. 219232). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or media determinism. Web Document. Theatre, Film & Television Studies, Aberystwyth University, U.K. Retrieved from http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Documents/tecdet/ CWTA. (2011). Wireless Communications Make Canada Stronger. Retrieved Dec. 2, 2011 from http://www.cwta.ca/CWTASite/english/index.html Fortunati, L. (2003, June). The mobile phone and self-presentation. Paper presented at the Front stage/back stage: mobile communication and the renegotiation of the social sphere, Grimstad, Norway.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE

12

Gergen, K. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance (pp. 227-241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Katz, J. E. (2006). Magic in the air: Mobile communication and the transformation of social life. N.J.: Transaction. McEwen, R. (2010). Tools of the trade: Drugs, law and mobile phones in canada. New Media Society, 13(1), 134-150. doi: 10.1177/1461444810365306 McLear, J. (2011). Classdroid. Retrieved Nov. 30, 2011 from http://mclear.co.uk/sites/classdroid/ Paragas, P. (2005). Being mobile with the mobile: Cellular telephony and renegotiations. In P. Ling & P. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile Communications: Re-Negotiation of the social sphere (pp. 113-130). London, UK: Springer-Verlag. Pinch, T. (1996). The social construction of technology: a review. In R. Fox (Ed.), Technological Change (pp. 17-36). Amsterdam B.V: Overseas Publishers Association. Turkle, S. (2004). Whither psychoanalysis in computer culture?. Psychoanalytic Psychology , 21(1), 16-30. doi: 10.1037/0736-9735.21.1.16 Turkle, S. (2008). Always on/always-on-you: The tethered self. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies (pp. 121-137). Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc Vishwanath, A. and Chen, H. (2008), Personal communication technologies as an extension of the self: A cross-cultural comparison of people's associations with technology and their symbolic proximity with others. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (11), 17611775. doi: 10.1002/asi.20892

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CELL PHONE Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing technological change: The challenge to social theory. Current Sociology, 50(3), 347-363. doi: 10.1177/0011392102050003004 Wei, R. & Leung, L. (1999). Blurring public and private behaviours in public space: Policy

13

challenges in the use and improper use of the cell phone. Telematics and Informatics 16, 1126.