Final Essay, 475

My role in the Video Project

When the final project was first announced, we didn't know what topic we wanted to discuss. In our video. Just before the next class started (a group meeting day) I had the idea to research and investigate the Digital Divide as it is manifested on the WSU Pullman campus. During our meeting we discussed a few general ideas about what we could shoot for our video. I suggested my idea, and followed up with the idea of breaking it into three acts to cover the widest range of material possible. The group seemed to agree, and so we set out to create our video.

Two weeks later, we were beginning to get interviews lined up. I contacted DTC Faculty Kristen Arola, Suzanne Anderson, Lynn Gordon and Rebecca Goodrich about interviewing for our video, along with Academic Media Services and Surplus Stores. I managed to secure and record interviews with Kristen, Rebecca, and Surplus Stores. In the end, only the Surplus Stores interview made it into the final video, due to time constraints.

As we waited to hear back from our potential interviewees, I created the group website. I already had a WIX account, so I created and organized the website. I also started the Twitter and Facebook page (we ended up only using the Twitter page) to post updates on the progress of our project.

Part of the assignment guidelines called for a project proposal, complete with a summary of what our project was about, annotated sources for the group, and individual annotated sources. By this time we had each others email addresses, allowing us to communicate more easily. We started a group Google Doc and we each contributed to it to complete the project proposal. In this Google Doc, I wrote the thesis statement and the project summary, and, of course, my individual annotated bibliography. I also found some of the group bibliography sources, and contributed the annotation to one or two of them while the other members of the group found, read, and annotated other sources.

At this point, the project was rolling along smoothly. We were starting to hear back from our potential interviewees, and shortly thereafter I was able to interview Rebecca Goodrich (an interview which did not make the final cut). It was also around this time that Jordan disappeared for a short while and Maxwell disappeared for a week (I later learned that an issue came up that practically immobilized Maxwell for a week). At this point Sam and I began operating under the assumption that we would possibly be completing the rest of the project by ourselves. Sam decided to interview members of his fraternity about their computers, for Act I, and I was to interview Surplus Stores about E-Waste and myself about the Linux Operating system for Act III. I already had footage ready to go for Act II.

Though we were told that we didn't have to shoulder the burden of our missing classmates, I didn't want them to be shouldered out the process and thereby have their grades ruined. I emailed Jordan and Maxwell that night, asking them where they were. I suggested that they could work together and interview someone in the Com Department about the Com computer labs, which would give us insight into two colleges that rely heavily on computer labs (Jordan and Maxwell are both Com Majors as I understand).

Jordan showed up to the next class and began working on contacting someone in the Com department, but Maxwell was still missing. I was to interview Surplus Stores that Friday, and Maxwell emailed us that night, apologizing and explaining his absence, while also stating that he was ready to help wherever he could. I told him to be at the surplus stores the next day so he could help me interview Mike Campbell of Surplus Stores. Sure enough, Maxwell arrived, and we started the interview right away.

The interview with surplus went quite well, and soon we had our first big interview recorded, ready for editing. We continued interviewing people around campus until we had all the interviews we thought we needed. It was then time to start the editing process. Maxwell editied togethe his footage to form Act II, Jordan editied together Sam's footage to create Act I, and I edited together the surplus stores footage, the footage of me interviewing myself about Ubuntu Linux, and the closing footage with all four of stating what we thought the biggest “digilemmas” on campus were.

Finally, the three acts were ready for rendering. I spent an entire two hour lab session on the Com department being logged onto three computer simultaneously as I rendered out all three acts at the same time. Once all three acts had rendered out, I moved to the second open lab where Maxwell and I compiled the three acts into one final video, rendered the final video, and uploaded it to Youtube.

There were some issues with the final upload. Due to confusion with Premiere and due to time constraints, the video rendered in a lower quality than we would have liked. There were also a few bugs that we didn't quite figure out in time, such as the fact that the Act II title card was missing. The video also runs a bit on the long side, with a run time just under twenty-five minutes. Yet, we still have entire interviews that did not make the final cut. We tried our best to give an all-around look at the Digital Divide on the WSU campus, but I think that we just scratched the surface of what could be covered. I honestly think that four or five short documentaries could be made about WSU's Digilemmas. I suppose that task will have to fall into the hands of future students.

“My” Digilemmas

When I started working on this project, I became intrigued with the worldwide dilemmas of E-Waste. I had never paid much attention to what happens to old electronics when they are retired and discarded. I remembered noticing a symbol on my electronic devices advising me not to throw them away in the trash can when I was done using them, but I had never given the idea much thought. I just remember thinking “well if you can't throw them away there, then how do you get rid of them?”

I first became interested in the E-Waste problem as I created my “What is Digital Culture” Pintrest board for class. I focused my board on the life-cycle of digital technology. I started with the invention and innovation of new technology, followed by the mass production on digital devices (a process fraught with problems and nearly slave-like working conditions). I then focused on the excitement of getting the newest gadget (unboxing videos, anyone?), followed by the more geeky option of re-purposing older machines. Finally, I had to discover and face the reality of what happens to old computer technology when it is useless for anything other than scrap. The discoveries I made shocked me and led me to more critically analyze (and become more disgusted with) the ravenous habit that first-world countries have made of throwing away their digital devices as soon as the “newest model” is released.

Long story short, more often than not, scrap computers, collectively known as “E-Waste” is illegally shipped overseas to third-world countries where dangerous, unhealthy techniques are used to recover the valuable components from these computers. Scrap wire often has its insulation burned off, allowing the copper to be salvaged, but also releasing toxic fumes into the air. Meanwhile, computer parts that cannot be re-used are left strewn about the scrapyard, leaching toxic chemicals into the ground and nearby streams and rivers.

According to the many academic sources that I read, there is yet no good, clean system in place for recycling E-Waste. The sources seemed hopeful that such technology would be developed soon, but stated that, in the meantime, there is no good option.

With this rather bleak mindset, I decided to contact Washington State University Surplus Stores. I had visited the Surplus Stores a couple times before, as I love finding cool old stuff for sale at low prices. I recalled seeing bales of old gutted computer towers outside the Surplus Stores building in my previous visits, so I decided to ask if there was anyone there that I could interview about the process of scrapping old computers. I received a positive response from Mike Campbell of Surplus Stores, and within a few weeks I was on my way to the Surplus Stores warehouse to conduct an interview.

I went into the interview expecting to hear the same doom and gloom that I had found in my academic sources. I came away, however, with much more positive outlook on the E-Waste recycling process.

While Surplus Stores does rebuild and resell some of the retired University computers that arrive daily at the warehouse, many of them are considered too old or not worth the effort of repairing and reselling. These machines are dismantled for their scrap value. Mr. Campbell explained that they work with recyclers of the West Coast who have the systems in place to efficiently extract the valuable components of the scrap computers. Surplus Stores sells the printed circuit boards to the scrappers, and, as of this month, Surplus Stores will receive three dollars per pound for scrap PCBs. Meanwhile, Surplus Stores has to pay to scrap older plastic computer cases due to a non-recyclable flame retardant in the plastic, but the income from the scrap PCBs helps to fund the disposal of the older plastic cases.

After a computer tower has been gutted, hard drives can be destroyed in a crusher to make any data stored on them irrecoverable, and the empty tower shells are bailed and sent to a scrapper.

I was amazed when I saw how thorough the process was for scrapping and recycling E-Waste at Surplus Stores. Mr. Campell claimed that the operation was almost 100% green, and I have to agree with him. It seems that Washington State University Surplus Stores has done what many of the academic authors considered impossible. I came away from the interview realizing that recycling E-Waste in a green manner was achievable after all. I also realized that I would have to rethink what the biggest “digilemma” on campus was. Recycling the University's E-Waste, it seems, was the thing to be least concerned about.

I continued to try to schedule other interviews. Three interviews fell through, but the stars aligned and I was able to interview Kristen Arola, the head of the DTC department. In my interview with Kristin, we discussed the importance of student access to the hardware and software that students need to complete their assignments. Kristen confirmed my suspicion that there are students out there who cannot afford to buy the computer hardware and software that they need who also do not have access to campus computer labs which have that hardware and software. At first, I thought of this as a rather small problem. Little did I realize that I would later find this problem, the dilemma of students not having the resources they need to complete their digital homework, to be one of the biggest “digilemmas” on campus.

As we finished shooting our footage, we decided to start editing it together. It was around this time that I realzied the DTC 475, the pinnacle class of the DTC major which required creating a 15 minute documentary video, did not provide access to a single computer lab on campus. Fortunately, myself and two of my group members were taking classes in the Communications department, and so we had access to the computer labs there for a few hours a day. The labs were fairly small, but, thankfully, also fairly empty. During the editing process, I had to log in and work on three separate computers at once. I would edit footage on one machine while the other two slowly rendered out finalized video to the server. It was a slow process, but it worked. It also would have nearly impossible to do on my 2006 Dell running Ubuntu 12.04, a version of a Linux.

Towards the end of the project, I interviewed myself about the benefits of Linux, specifically the Ubuntu operating system, and how I wished that more people knew about this free software that could breathe new life into older computers and make them usable for a few more years. I have used Ubuntu nearly exclusively for my own computers for the past four years, and have been very pleased with it.

Even this paper that I am typing now is being created using the free, open source LibreOffice office software suite on a five-year old netbook that is running Ubuntu 12.04. Without this free, more effcient software, this computer would have been obsolete at least two years ago. However, the newer software has kept the computer usable in today's tech world for a few extra years.

In my interviews with Rebcecca Goodrich and Kristin Arola, we discussed the possibilities of expanding the use of open source software on campus, both through promoting its use on students' personal computers and in campus computer labs. I began to wonder if this would become the biggest issue, the biggest “digilemma” on campus that would need to be resolved.

The next week, our group finally had all of the footage we needed to complete our project. Maxwell and I began spending time in the Communications labs, editing our raw footage and assembling the final video. It was during this time that I discovered “my” digilemma.

Maxwell, Jordan, and I all had access to the Communications lab and the servers because we were enrolled in Communications classes. The class we were creating this video for, however, was not in the Communications College. In fact, this class, which required a 15 minute collaborative video as part of the final project, did not provide access to a computer lab for its students. I found this rather illogical, as DTC/AMST 475 is the competitive entry, pinnacle class of the Digital Technology and Culture major. How, then, do 475 students not qualify for the use of a computer lab? This, then, is what I find to be the biggest digilemma on campus, the biggest problem related to the digital divide on the Pullman campus of Washington State University.

During the editing process, I watched some of Maxwell's footage in which he interviewed the camputer lab technician for the Communications Department. I found it rather sad and disconcerting how, in the interview, the lab technician spoke of how he predicted the University would downsize and perhaps eliminate the computer labs rather than bringing them up to better, more fitting standards. I found this mentality rather depressing. Unless computer technology manages to hit a plateau and stagnate for awhile, computers that are up to the task of performing digital media creation the with latest software are not going to come down in price, and neither will the software needed to “stay current” with what is being used in the real world.

So, what then is to be done? How can a student keep up in the computer world where expensive new machine and expensive new software is needed every few years. I think, first of all, we need to look at why we replace our computers. Often, we replace them because they break down, which points to lousy, cheap manufacturing. Well-built machines should be able to be used for 100 years, even if no one is commonly using them anymore. However, many computers are simply retired because they are no longer “up to date”, or are “no longer supported”, which simply means that no company is interested

in maintaining infrastructure that allows older but functioning machines to continue to operate. Of course, open source software and operating systems will often allow older machines to operate several years after mainstream commercial systems would have considered them “useless”. Why, then, do not more people use these systems? I think that people are reluctant to try extending their computer's life-span for two reasons.

The first reason is that people are unwilling to try something that is unfamiliar to them. They have never used Linux, or they have heard that is only a thing that geeks use, so they don't want to even try it. They dismiss it without ever even trying it, a choice that ends up being an expensive and wasteful descision.

The second reason is that people have tricked into thinking that their new computer is actually better than their old one. They spend most of their money on buying that “cool factor” when they purchase a new machine, which will be outdated by manufacturers standards within a few years, just like their old one. They are a caught in the cycle that the manufacturer wants them to be caught in, and will forever be buying new machines and new software because the manufacturers want them to.

I think that if more people tried open source software, that the tech world could change for the better. Systems could be put in place to allow older computers to continue to function, despite their years. Open source software could be utilized in campus computer labs, cutting computer lab costs and making more computers available for students to use. Eventually, open source software may find its way to the “real world” where it could be used alongside or, depending on the company's needs, in place of expensive programs like the Adobe Suite.

This, then, is the biggest digilemma on campus. The University is unwilling to try open source software which could be put in place for a very low cost, which, in turn, would allow computer labs to be maintained and perhaps even expanded at a lower cost, thereby allowing students more access to the computer resources that they need to complete homework assignments and both become and remain competitive in both their college education and the real world.

Sometimes we can learn the most important things about our world by attending to the smallest things, things that seem absolutely trivial and inconsequential such as mardi gras beads.  Pick 5 of the bullet points to address for your blog and be sure to reference the documentary Mardi Gras Made in China and our first readings in Goldstein’s Low Wage Capitalism:

• What are your personal assumptions about “Made in China”?
  

When I hear “made in china”, I think “cheap”, “possibly contains high amounts of lead” “too expensive to make in the US” and “not worth making well”

• What is globalization, and how does it impact product manufacture and sales?
  

As stated in the Goldstein readings, globalization means that companies are always searching for the cheapest place to outsource their labor to. This creates a never-ending wild goose chase to find who will work for the smallest amount.

• Why do more and more U.S. companies manufacture and source products overseas, and why do U.S. consumers purchase these products?
    It is cheaper to manufacture goods overseas than it is to manufacture them in the US. The cost of living, taxes, and other employment restrictions (minimum wage) are constantly going up in the US, so hiring US employees gets too expensive. By outsourcing the work, many of those costs are eliminated. US consumers continue to purchase these products because they either don't want to pay the high prices for Made-In-USA goods, or there is no Made-In-USA equivalent of the product they want to buy.
  
  
• What are the working conditions at foreign factories producing goods for the U.S. market?
   Usually very poor. The conditions of foreign factories often reflect those of “Company Towns” in the US in the 20th Century, but quality of life is much, much lower.
  
  
• Why do factory workers in foreign factories work under the current conditions? 
  There is often no other choice. The workers have families they need to take care of, and this work, though dangerous and dull, provides the most consistent income. As shown in the Mardi Gras: Made in China video, the workers there have a very consistent work schedule.
  
  
• How are artifacts/products embedded with social and cultural meaning? How and why does a product become disposable?
  A product is seen as disposable if it is cheaply made (thus cheap to buy) and would be too redundant to keep to re-use. These are usually utilitarian objects that are considered “useless” after being used.
  
   http://www.businessinsider.com/better-think-twice-before-throwing-away-these-products-2012-3
  

Barricadin' Buses. Why?

This week we began our section on 'Race, Technology and Everyday Life' to broaden our understanding of technology beyond those who work in the 'information industry' and investigate how technology comes into contact with peoples' everyday experiences.  Specifically we do not merely want to understand how a technology is used but uncover the contests around technology that are always linked to larger struggles for economic mobility, political maneuvering and community building. 

For this week's blog I want you to read about the controversy between Google Bus and San Francisco residents and discuss how it is connected to issues of gentrification, theorizing work in the information society, activism, the ways in which activism is reported (how is race reported).  How does this fit into our discussions about technology, race and everyday life?  Please remember to use class readings to ground your analysis.  You may start here and here and here for resources. 

I had not heard of the Google bus blockade before, and it was definitely an interesting story to read, though quite sad as well. From what I understand, Google wanted to get its employees to work faster, so it started using buses to get their employees to work faster. Why have each employee drive a separate car when you can bus them all to work? This means fewer cars on the road for other commuters, and Google gets its employees to work more efficiently. Was Google illegally using Muni's bus stops? It appears so. Should Google be paying to use those stops? I think so. It sounds to me like that problem got ironed out pretty quickly. Problem solved, right?

Well, not quite, because the protesters are still blocking the bus from moving? Why are they doing that? Oh I see their signs now, they say something about “no more gentrification”. What exactly is “gentrification”? It is the process where neighborhoods become wealthier, housing prices go up, and the poor are often displaced. That's what these bus protesters are complaining about. They want to maintain a status quo. They don't want local road conditions improved for fear of their dwellings becoming more desirable, and therefore more expensive. . In other words, they are so concerned with their own comfort, that they think it's right to go out and stop other people from getting work so the road conditions don't improve. After all, if the Google employees can't get to work, the housing prices won't go up, right? If other people are remedying the congestion problem, then, by golly, stop traffic and create a problem yourself. Oh, wait. If you have to create the problem yourself, you probably are the problem already.

Artificially maintaining the status quo doesn't work this way. You argue as that the only reason housing prices are going up is because Google is making roads emptier. It's as though you want smog and clogged roads simply so you don't have to move. When your landlord wants to charge higher rates because people are willing to pay to live somewhere where its easier to get to work, that's perfectly fine. It's called the free market. Things change. Cities change, and its about time people learned that. If anything, stagnancy, not change, should be avoided.

Are there solutions to this gentrification? I believe so, but stopping a bus isn't one of them. Creating affordable housing is. Creating a city that is easier to move around in is another option. City governments have a duty to make their cities easier and better to live in, and one way of doing that is by adding mass transportation. Google has actually helped resolve that problem, and the “residents” aren't helping. That's not a very good term though, “residents”. It creates an artificial divide, as though Google employees are some evil master race while the underdog “residents” are the oppressed minority. At least one protester painted the picture that way in this article. As far as I'm concerned, those “Google-etes” are residents too. They just happen to work at Google. The protesters are the ones who say that the Google employees don't have a right to live where they do. The protesters are creating the divide, not Google and its employees.

 P.S. Having to impersonate the "enemy" to make people hate them is pretty low (and lame), if you ask me: 

Fallen for a Sales Pitch: Blog Post 6/7, DTC 475.

In “How the Internet Enables Intimacy”, Stefana Broadbent argues that, while some researchers are dismayed by the fact that we are not using social media to connect with a wider range of people, she, rather, is intrigued by the discovery that users of social media tend to use it to strengthen relationships with usually no more than five people. What makes social media great, Broadbent argues, is that these relationship interactions are no longer restricted by time or space, as social media allows for instant communication, no matter where the two people are located.

Broadbent also brings to our attention that those in power are trying to limit us from communicating freely with others. Businesses try to keep their employees focused on their work, schools try to keep students focused on their studies, etc. Our lives are dictated more and more by those in power. Now, in some situations, I believe the rule to not use a cellphone or other communication device is important and, in fact common sense. If you're being paid to complete certain tasks at a desk job, and you are efficiently and competently completing those tasks, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to field the occasional call from home or answer a text once in a while, just so long as it doesn't interfere with the work you contracted to do. Some jobs are simply not conducive to this. If you are are “board-opping” at a radio station, you know when you have a time to answer a text, and when you shouldn't because you need to focus making sure the upcoming commercial break gets played. You are on company time and company money, so make sure you do your job well. If you can answer a couple texts as well, great! If not, then don't complain as if you are an oppressed minority suffering a social injustice, because you are not. There are some jobs where no cell phone use while working is mandatory. I've worked two of these types of jobs, one paid, and one volunteer. One such position is where appearance and attentiveness are part of the job requirements. If you're working as an usher at a football game, you don't pull out your phone and start texting. You are paid to stand their, answer questions, be courteous, and look professional. Part of looking professional in such a setting is being alert, smiling, welcoming guests, and being concerned that they have a good time at the game that they paid money to buy tickets for. The company is not paying you to send texts to your buddy about what you want to do that weekend. If that kind of job sounds impossible to you, then don't apply for it.

The other kind of job that may wisely restrict social media use is a dangerous job where alertness is required at all times. Railroad work is one such example. There was a train collision several years ago where the engineer of a passenger train was texting on his cell phone, missed a red signal, and plowed his train into the rear of a freight train a few minutes later. Since then, the Federal Railroad Administration banned the use of cell phones and other hand-held electronic devices not issued to employees by the railroad. This rule is one that I have to follow, even on the 5 mile long heritage railway where I volunteer as train crew. When I am on train crew, my phone is stowed away in my grip, only to be turned on and used in case of emergency. For everyone on and off the train to remain safe, I need to be fully alert and ready to act, and a cell phone would only prove to be a distraction.

We must remember, however, that getting to use our devices at work at all is quite a privilege, for there are many people who work in other countries where they spend most of their lives doing nothing but making the devices we long to use. In Sophia Cheng's article The Deadly Labor Behind Our Phones, Laptops and Consumer Gadgets, we are told of a factory where people work long hours, standing the entire time, making less than a dollar each day, sleeping when their shift is done, only to do it over again when they wake up. Of course, in such a brutal environment, the only phones or other gadgets allowed at work are those that they are building; the same gadgets that we buy and then complain about not being allowed to use while we are at work.

I don't want the moral of this talk to be “life is never so bad that it can never get get worse”, but I do think we should realize that by demanding to have uninterrupted contact with our friends and family, no matter where we are or who is paying us for our time, other people on these other countries are suffering because of it, because of the few in power who see the need to make money as paramount. I do not want to demonize technology. Burning cell phones is not going to do anyone (or anyone's lungs) any good. However, I do want to suggest that we start looking critically at how we use our technology. Why do we, both as individuals and as a people, buy into the lie that we always need newer, faster machines. Why do we we need to use these machines 24/7? Why is their little to no demand that companies build more dependable, longer lasting machines with legacy support programs? What really makes these new gadgets “better”?

We have fallen for a sales pitch, and people on other countries are paying for it.

"Embodiment": DTC 475 Blog #5

"For this weeks blog I want you to reflect on 'what does embodiment mean'. Hawthorn shows us how the Internet has been used to exploit women and children in the global prostitution industry and it has in turn shaped how the internet is structured, "although the Internet offers open communication to people throughout the world, it should not be permitted to be dominated and controlled by men's interests..." How do our expectations of the Internet facilitate men's desires? What does this say about men's desires and expectations of 'real' (i.e. material) women? What does this say about power reasons in society?"

From http://www.merriam-webster.com :

em·body

transitive verb \im-ˈbä-dē\
: to represent (something) in a clear and obvious way : to be a symbol or example of (something)
: to include (something) as a part or feature

"Embodiment"

“The Internet is great” 'twas said.

“No one knows what paths you tread”

“No one knows where you log on

“Or who are, 'what hat you don'”

“Trust me, you've nought to dread”

So I logged on so I could see

what my options were to “broadcast me”

I soon found out that I could start

a fanbase for me, I was off the charts

And I had all my privacy

And when social media was all the craze

Getting Facebook likes, well, I had my ways

And dating sites allowed me to mingle

(I wondered how much longer I'd be single)

Ah yes, those were the glory daze (sic)

But I found, with no one watching

Websites for gazing upon debauching

And vigor for vice awakened within

I thought to myself “could this be a sin?”

But found myself ever more wanting

And so it went on, for day after day

I must admit, it didn't feel “okay

But no one knew . . . right?

I was completely out of sight!

And then I learned it always works that way

For I read a story in the news

About a girl who had to choose

When kidnapped one night

Faced a hellish plight

Of whether to die or face endless abuse

And so she was sold, and suffered long

at the hands of thugs, who did her wrong

sold over again, for a man to posses

so he could regain his “manliness”

And then sold again, to another she'd belong.

And all this went on, for year upon year

How much sadness? How many shed tears?

And all hidden in obscurity

For the sake of patrons' privacy

All because she “had a nice rear?”

I recoiled in sadness, and in grief and in pain

I realized that all I'd ever sought to gain

all my wants, my desires, my demands, my druthers

was forcefully dredged from the life of another

And so I sat there, to weep in the rain.

My happiness found in the shackles of a fellow

My entertainment revealed to be rotten and hollow

I sat there and pondered “what path shall I follow?”

“Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” John 3:20

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/tricked-the-documentary/trailers/3948188

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/meet-filmakers-behind-human-trafficking-documentary-tricked/

-- Drew Black, 2014.

*Witty Title* (a.k.a. "DTC 475 Blog Post #4")

This week will be a 'student led' blog response.  I want you to provide your reaction and reflection the of documentary 'Office Tigers'.  Discuss how technology is an artifact and process of globalization, how technology facilitates cultural imperialism & how the digital divide reveals the contradictions about development around the world.

  Please make sure to ground your reflection by drawing on this weeks reading by Nakamura, Shome and Dori.  

      Drori states in Global E-Litism that “the era of globalization is marked by the expansion of social exchanges internationally and transnationally. Global interaction extends to more and more spheres of our life. These days, people, commodities, capital, and information rapdily flow across national borders and to all hidden corners of the world. . . Globality, then, describes the scope of social life”(4). The Office Tiger business is built directly on this principle of globalization and is made possible by the employment of modern technology

     
     Office Tigers was definitely interesting, thought-provoking, and somewhat depressing too. The idea behind the Office Tiger company seems like a good business move, mining a new market and opening up jobs to the local population as a result. My approach to the situation is best summed up in the categories provided by a 1960's Spaghetti Western;

 

The Good:

     
The company seems to be successful. The employees act professionally. A professional work environment is put in place, and the company goes to great lengths to ensure that the employee base is educated in every aspect of their area of work, be it spreadsheet organization or graphic design for posters. Since the company is successful, they are a major employer in their area, and their work environment is probably safer than many of the other jobs available in the area.

 
The Bad:
    
I don't really like the boss. He carries himself somewhat professionally, but he seems rather...proud. I don't blame him for being pleased with the business he has started, and I certainly don't fault him for wanting to improve the company he has poured so much into. Still, he seems to think that, somehow, he is better than his employees. Honestly, from the way he carries himself in the documentary, it seems that he treats his employees like doormats. He even gets their names wrong on camera and doesn't seem to care. To him, they're just another cog in the machine. He shows off the employees as if he's showing off a new car.

 
The Ugly:
     
Let's face it, the work that Office Tigers do is mundane, stressful work. Since you serve clients around the globe, the company operates 24/7. It seems that many of the employees work very, very long shifts, staring at computer screen for hours at a time. Add to that the fact that they are frequently on a tight schedule, and the work life seems even less healthy. Of course, some of these elements are part of the industry, and can't be avoided. Time zones exist, there's no way around that. It does seem, however, that shifts could be scheduled more efficiently (which might result in a better final product as well). Still, it does seem that a position at Office Tiger is a highly desired job in the local community.

    

 Discuss how technology is an artifact and process of globalization, how technology facilitates cultural imperialism & how the digital divide reveals the contradictions about development around the world.

     
     Now, the blog prompt instructs us to discuss how technology is an artifact and process of of globalization. However, I am arguing that it is not. Changes in technology are not caused by globalization. Rather, technology is an enabler of globalization. Technology itself does not globalize industry, culture, etc., but it does make globalization easier. It usually doesn't take long for someone to figure out how to use the tech in such a fashion, and thereby make a profit.

     
     This same technology also facilitates “cultural imperialism” to some degree. The rest of the world is starting to look more and more like the Western world. Even the various places in the Western world are beginning to look more and more like America. Yet as various cultures in the American melting pot begin to re-separate into the figurative salad bowl, America is beginning to look more like other parts of the world.

     
      In the case of Office Tigers, some of the employees may feel pressured by their clients who live in 1st world countries and have high expectations for the work they have contracted out. When one of the employees is lambasted for “inferior” work, one might say this is a prime example of cultural imperialism, as the employee in the 3rd world has to live up to the expectations of the 1st world. However, there may yet be a power balance possible. If more and more work at a 1st world business is outsourced to 3rd world countries, the 1st world business may eventually become dependent on that outsourcing, which then puts the power in the hands of the 3rd world contractor. America was once a manufacturing superpower, but is no longer, and now relies on other countries to make its things, which is definitely having an effect on American economics.

     
     As a final note related to that last thought and one of my previous blog posts, we often think of “technology” as the newest Facebook machine that was imported from China, will be used for a few years in America, and then will be junked and burned for copper salvage in Africa. But technology was and can be so much more than that. Before globalization, the “Made in USA” stamp on just about anything was a sign of a quality product. Now, it most frequently appears on old things sitting in the local antique mall.

    
      Perhaps that will change. If you haven't seen this ad yet, you should. Building, crafting a quality product to last is something to be proud of, and something America needs to get back to. We don't neccesairly need to globalize our culture, but we do need to work on re-cultivating it here in our homeland. “Work is beautiful thing”.

      Digital Culture Pintrest Board:
 http://www.pinterest.com/wkndrailroader/digital-culture-defined/

I decided to focus on some of the problems with digital technology and how it, when mishandled or poorly used, ends up hurting those in various countries of various races and classes. I focused on sharing videos, as they tell the story more efficiently.

Digital Culture always loves the next trending thing and wants it instantly, rarely thinking about what the human cost for the newest gadget will be, and not caring about the human cost of what happens to the the last-generation gadget.