Jump to content

User:Sjpaik/Apparatgeist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparatgeist

Apparatgeist theory is defined as “the spirit of the machine that influences both the designs of the technology as well as the initial and subsequent significance accorded to them by users, non-users and anti-users.”[1] The theory was developed by James E. Katz and Mark Aakhus to explore the social, cultural and material aspects of the mobile and personal communication technologies, PCTs.[2] “Regardless of culture, when people interact with PCTs, they tend to standardise infrastructure and gravitate towards consistent tastes and universal features,” Katz states.[3]

The two scholars proposed this term to bring the primary focus upon the human use and consequences of PCTs. In an effort to explain the patterns associated with PCTs, Katz and Aakhus advanced the concept of Apparatgeist by identifying several cross-cultural trends in the adoption, use and conceptualization of mobile phones. These trends have emerged in many social contexts, including participation in social networks, changes in traditional communication habits to accommodate mobile communication, competent mobile communication and unanticipated behaviors from mobile communication.

Background

[edit]

This theory examines one's relationship with his/her technology, as well as the relationship that the two have with society. The term refers to “the common set of strategies or principles of reasoning about technology evident in the identifiable, consistent and generalized patterns of technological advancement throughout history.”[4] Apparatgeist is a neologism in the field of new media and communication and it is in some ways “lead to New Age kinds of spiritualism represented in attempts to suggest a new kind of community technospirit which emerges within a particular medium." [5] Katz and Aakhus argue that individuals tend to "standardize infrastructure and gravitate towards consistent tastes and universal features."[6] Users thus engage in mobile telephone use in largely similar ways. The essence of the Apparatgeist theory is that technology use is socially constructed and not technologically deterministic. These norms are established as a shared understanding of how one's technology should be used. This shared understanding is derived from the social construction theory and is commonly referred to as "social constructionism."[7]

Theoretical elements

[edit]

Pertaining to how PCTs bring about the Apparatgeist:

  • PCTs have a geist which can be likened to the expansion of freedom.[8]
  • PCTs have their own logic that informs the judgements people make about the utility or value of the technologies in their environment.”[9]
  • PCTs inform the predictions that scientists and technology producers might make about personal technologies.[10]
  • “PCTs have a socio-logic that results from ‘communities of people “thinking and acting together over time.”’[11]
  • In making possible Apparatgeist PCTs, ‘the compelling image of perpetual contact is the image of pure communication...which is an idealization of communication committed to the prospect of sharing one’s mind with another, like the talk of angels that occurs without the constraints of the body.'[12]

Application of Apparatgeist theory in other research

[edit]
  1. Yuan focuses on the effects of Chinese culture on mobile communication usage behavior and patterns. Through a snowball sampling technique, the research gathered in-depth interviews with Chinese people living in metropolitan areas. The results showed that there was a clear distinction in the way Chinese people communicated on mobile phones versus people in the West. Contrary to western cultures’ emphasis  on keeping a small and tight knit circle of contacts in their mobile phones, the findings in this research showed that Chinese mobile users have a large and open network of mobile contact. “Contextualized mobility” was found to be more significant than the theoretical constructions of the Apparatgeist and perpetual contact. [13]
  2. Kneidinger-Müller extends the Apparatgeist theory to understand the social factors that understand the effects of parallel communication habits in the usage of mobile phones. The research surveyed 339 smartphone users in Germany and found that social factors were equally as important as usage and technological factors to understand communication practices.[14]
  3. Tojib et al. applies both the Apparatgeist and domestication theory as a theoretical groundwork to show how the symbolic use of smartphones brings about positive effect on user attachment to mobile phones. Subsequently, this leads to the experimental value of using value-added mobile services that is defined as “any services beyond voice calls and short messaging services offered by mobile telecommunication service providers.” Apparatgeist helps to support the idea that the add-on activities via value-added mobile services bring “purposeful engagement” and ultimately brings experiential value and value-expressiveness to users.[15]
  4. Axelsson examines culture and life stages as factors to see which is more a primary determiner of mobile-phone usage and attitudinal patterns. Deriving data from a Swedish national survey of 18-24 year olds in Sweden, Axelsson find that “young adults (compared with older people) seem to be in perpetual contact with family, friends and colleagues.” This finding shows that life stages are a greater determinant factor than culture in the use of and attitudes towards mobile phones. The Apparatgeist theory supports the hypothesis in this research; “the mobile phone is used in rather similar ways, regardless of cultural context.”[16]
  5. Vanden Abeele explores the variations in lifestyles within mobile youth culture by constructing a user typology of Flemish adolescents and measuring the gratifications received from the use of mobile phones. Apparatgeist is used as a theoretical basis to emphasize shared commonalities in developmental challenges that adolescents face, particularly when it came to the similarities in mobile phone gratifications regardless different cultural contexts. The research concludes that a complex relationship is visible among the “structural and social-psychological backgrounds of youths, developmental tasks, and the functionalities of mobile media technologies as they are recognized in a particular time and context.”[17]
  6. Tan et al. conducted a multi-method study to understand whether email and SMS --two types of PCTs (personal communication technologies)--were more or less suitable for different environments. Consistent with the apparatgeist and social construction theory, this research shows that PCTs carry a common set of meanings about their nature and purpose that are general across social settings. Consumers overwhelmingly “perceived SMS as more intimate and also more intrusive than email” Nonetheless, the study also validates the context-cultural dimension differences such as different preferences for use in dissemination of commercial messages between Chinese and Swiss consumers.[18]
  7. Campbell drew on the apparatgeist theory to explore the extent to which the use of mobile telephones by individuals in different cultures show similarities or variations. By sampling college students from Hawaii, Japan, Sweden, Taiwan and the US, Campbell concluded that although there are apparent varieties in communication practices in different cultures, there is also an inherent universality in the way people interact through mobile phones that stem from a basic human need. This idea of communication as a universal aspect of humanity comes from the basis of Apparatgeist.[19]
  8. Shuter et al explores the impact of cultural values and observes the contextual norms on mobile phone activity between American and Danes. Apparatgeist and SCOT (the social construction of technology) theory are used as an initial starting point for this research. Extending beyond the contextual and inmate human values factor found in the Apparatgeist and SCOT theory, the findings of this research identifies a universal logic and indigenous cultural factors as a foundation to the study of cross-national attitudes and usage of mobile phones.[20]

Contesting views

[edit]

Mizuko Ito, an anthropologist at the University of California in Irvine, believes technologies are both constructive and constructed by historical, social, and cultural contexts. Rather than conducting a comparative and global survey of mobile phone use, Ito looked at the multifaceted and sustained engagement of mobile phone use in one national context — Japan. Through this approach, Ito finds significance in the social and cultural diversity in mobile phone use across different cultures.[21]

Scott Campbell of the University of Michigan, author of several papers on mobile-phone usage, expects some persistence of cultural variations. Campbell’s study “suggest that cultural values may influence the norms of mobile communicators, with individualists and collectivists." Campbell believes that people behave differently in public settings that stem from different cultural and social norms. He extends this idea by establishing terms such as horizontal and vertical individualists to display different mobile phone norms.[22]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Perpetual Contact : Mobile Communication, Private Talk, Public Performance, edited by James E. Katz, and Mark Aakhus, Cambridge University Press, 2002. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bu/detail.action?docID=202130.
  2. ^ Katz, J. E. and Aakhus, M. (2002). "Conclusion: Making meaning of mobiles—a theory of Apparatgeist". In Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance, Edited by: Katz, J.E. and Aakhus, M.301–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bu/detail.action?docID=202130
  3. ^ Campbell, Scott (2013). Mobile Technology and the Body: Apparatgeist, Fashion, and Function. MIT Press Scholarship Online. ISBN 9780262113120.
  4. ^ Katz, J. (2003). Machines That Become Us. New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203786826
  5. ^ Holmes, D. (2005). Communication theory : Media, technology and society. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
  6. ^ "The Apparatgeist calls". The Economist.
  7. ^ Postmes, T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3): 341–347.
  8. ^ Holmes, D. (2005). Communication theory : Media, technology and society. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
  9. ^ Holmes, D. (2005). Communication theory : Media, technology and society. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
  10. ^ Holmes, D. (2005). Communication theory : Media, technology and society. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
  11. ^ Holmes, D. (2005). Communication theory : Media, technology and society. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
  12. ^ Holmes, D. (2005). Communication theory : Media, technology and society. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
  13. ^ Elaine J. Yuan (2012) From “Perpetual Contact” to Contextualized Mobility: Mobile Phones for Social Relations in Chinese Society, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5:3, 208-225, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17513057.2012.670714
  14. ^ Kneidinger-Müller, Bernadette (2017). Mobile communication as invader in face-to-face interactions: An analysis of predictors for parallel communication habits, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 73, Pages 328-335. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217302145
  15. ^ Tojib, D., Tsarenko, Y., & Sembada, A. Y. (2015). The facilitating role of smartphones in increasing use of value-added mobile services. New Media & Society, 17(8), 1220–1240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814522951
  16. ^ Axelsson, A.-S. (2010). Perpetual and personal: Swedish young adults and their use of mobile phones. New Media & Society, 12(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809355110
  17. ^ Vanden Abeele, M. M. (2016). Mobile lifestyles: Conceptualizing heterogeneity in mobile youth culture. New Media & Society, 18(6), 908–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814551349
  18. ^ Tan, C.-H., Sutanto, J., Phang, C. W., & Gasimov, A. (2014). Using personal communication technologies for commercial communications: A cross-country investigation of email and SMS. Information Systems Research, 25(2), 307+. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.bu.edu/apps/doc/A374528079/AONE?u=mlin_b_bumml&sid=AONE&xid=59154e5c
  19. ^ Campbell, S. W. (2007). A cross-cultural comparison of perceptions and uses of mobile telephony. New Media & Society, 9(2), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807075016
  20. ^ Shuter, R., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2013). A cross-national study of cultural values and contextual norms of mobile phone activity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 9(1), 1-10.
  21. ^ Itō, M., Okabe, Daisuke, & Matsuda, Misa. (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian : Mobile phones in Japanese life. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  22. ^ Campbell, S.W. (2008). Perceptions of mobile phone use in public: The roles of individualism, collectivism, and focus of the setting. Communication Reports, 21, no. 2: 70-81. doi:10.1080/08934210802301506.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sjpaik/Apparatgeist&oldid=923436146"