Today I had my first actual connection with my mentor, Elia. As this will only be a short post I won’t be going too much into what we talked about even though it very much relates to the topic of this post and extends it to levels of great inspiration! I will be getting back to this (for instance her work on mobilising citizen journalists in Guinnea just now) very soon, I’m sure! However, instead I’ll get started on my first ‘mentor assignment’, which will be an ongoing project for (I think) the rest of my blogging on Global Change. The task is to always have a photo illustrate my post, however abstract it might be.

Todays photo:

(I’ll explain the choice of photo in the bottom)

This post will have be a reflection from the last week that should hopefully keep me from being subject to Runes hard and terrible sanctions, which are yet to be revealed to the world onto a scared, slacking blogger on the Global Change team.

It might not be a surprise to many readers here that I have been frustrated about how we discuss technology, but I’m not really sure that too many are actually sure what I say that we should all get to know the technologies before deciding on anything.

I’m going to start off with a definition:

Technological determinism: the view that the effects of any new technology on work and employment are simply defined (i.e. determined in a fixed way) by the inherent capabilities and functions of the technology itself. This is invariably criticized for ignoring factors in the context of work and the role of human agents. (Principles of Organisational Behaviour, 2005)

Why do I post this? Because I believe Twitter can not do anything, Facebook can not do anything, a hub can not do anything – people can. This is what Peter is saying on his comment on Ninas post today: “U can use new media to benefit you too. Dont worry about those others” – the media is a tool, not a determination.

So why do I say this? Because I think that technological determinism (or any other kind of determinism) is harmful and should be reflected and critized to death, handing the power back to the users. And I hope we can start doing this amongst ourselves on Global Change, also – technology is man-made and can be whatever we use it for and we should at least acknowledge this. Changing media use to the better is a difficult task, but as Michael Edwards pointed out with a quote from Ghandi: the change startes within. Love or hate should not righted at technology, but a particular ways to use it. If we do so we will have ways to change technology – if it’s all inherent in the medium, we don’t have a chance.

I hope this has made it more clear to the New Communicators, why I’m so keen on not discussing media, which we do not have a common experience of. If we haven’t tried it, the discussion will be based on prejudices and that kind of discussion is – in my experience – easily driven by determinist views. These being technofic or technophile.

I’m not really sure if I made myslef clear on this, but I’m not sure that it’s crucial either – I’d much rather have a dialogue on this, so being edgy and partially unclear isn’t all bad, I guess.

Endingly I promised to post the reason for my choice of photo – this will also be an ongoing thing starting from today.

Choice of photo: I took this picture in an empty, run-down machine hall in Aalborg, and I think this machine has been part of making kettles. Just like this machine won’t build kettles on it’s own, Twitter (or any other medium) won’t make a campaign. The machine might have some strenghts and som weaknesses, but it does not have an inherent will – only the users do (even though the nature of this is very much up for discussion).