Anti-Monopoly: a response to the original Monopoly board game

The game of 'Monopoly' is a very familiar board game for most people in the 20^th-21^st century. Throughout this course we have focused on materialities and imaginaries of information capital(ism). The original game of Monopoly promotes a capitalist ideology for how to be successful; own as much property and have as much money as possible. The concept of Monopoly was challenged in 1973 by an economics professor named Ralph Anspach. Anspach created his own version of the game with a twist; there were monopolists and competitors. Monopolists strived to gain and maintain monopolies and competitors worked to disperse wealth among all of the players.

A real life battle had begun when Prof. Anspach challenged the creators of Monopoly; which shows that the original creators of the game did not want there to be an opposing product to impede the sales of Monopoly, especially one which went against the overall message of the game. By challenging the corporation behind Monopoly, Prof. Anspach was unintentionally challenging the capitalist ideological system of modern society. The link below is to a Wall Street Journal article which gives an overview of the implications of the creation of 'Anti-Monopoly'.

Article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125599860004295449 

What are your thoughts on the challenges Prof. Anspach faced when he attempted to oppose capitalist norms and create his own version of how society ought to function?

India's Silicon Valley: Bengaluru

Materialities of communication are based on registers/scales of materiality (Herman September 30, 2015). Social structures, geography, infrastructures, technologies and materialities of social/cultural practices all work together to create the materiality of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley became the number one area for start-up companies and high tech corporations in the USA due to its support of innovation and entrepreneurship. The social and business ideologies of Silicon Valley allowed for openness for new ideas and new possibilities for technological change.

In Packer and Wiley’s “Strategies for Materializing Communication” they identify five key terms which play a role in five key themes which all together recreate a materialist understanding of communication (economy, technology, space, body, and discourse) (p. 112). In the case of Silicon Valley the term ‘space’ is very important because the location (in the USA) and the buildings/infrastructure; the physical aspects of the offices as well as the governmental/business infrastructure which has allowed for a certain way of running these tech corporation. The term affordances would relate to the success of Silicon Valley because of the call to action and the opportunity for technological innovation in the USA at that time.

Given the reasons behind the success of Silicon Valley in the USA, do you think it is possible for India to have the same level of success with their smaller version of Silicon Valley; Bengaluru?

Watch Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whgcngbOTMQ - India’s Silicon Valley

The Imaginary of Money in Society

Within the film Silicon Valley much of the growth of the microelectronics industry is documented to show its technological advances. After reading Patrice Flichy's text regarding the myth of utopias I’m able to see a creation of the imaginary of money. An important quotation that acknowledges this imaginary is the statement said in an interview, “Money doesn’t seem real, it’s just a way of keeping score”. For many entrepreneurs their financial growth was no longer seen as a physical object of currency, but rather a way to show their importance in comparison to others. This resonated with myself due to the way it’s true in society. Much of our profits we never physically have, rather this imaginary salary we’re given based on our labor brings us closer to our utopias. Money is ultimately given a new meaning within this myth of success society created. As Flichy mentions this utopia functions on a level which legitimizes how the social group works (to produce and achieve more money) and is actually something unattainable. This is evident through Silicon Vallley because of the competition of new technology triumphing over older ones. The link between the quotation in connection to visible ideologies make it obvious to see that much of our desires of what we want are not physical, rather they created imaginaries we form through utopian ideologies. The way that our utopia drives our society to sell our labor to gain a non-physical amount of money led myself to do more research. Within an article on PCWorld it spoke of many elites in our society and their accomplishments that lead them to wealth. But at the end it says,

 "Of course, some of the valuations represent their net worth on paper, not in terms of money in the bank. Still, with the average American earning just a few million dollars over the course of their entire lives, they don’t have it so bad." 

What I found from this was that yes, our society is driven by this utopia of being the best solely on the amount of zero's on our paycheque to keep score against one another. But these large numbers or ways of keeping score don't exactly impact society living a satisfying life. 

Do you agree that our lives are surrounded by a utopia that encourages money to be an imaginary which keeps score?

Microcomputer...What the Heck is That?

Last week in class we spent some time talking about the microcomputer and learning about its introduction into the market, as well as its capabilities. As we discussed in class, the computers released in the 80s were much different in comparison to the computers we use today. Streeter talks about how microcomputers were part of their own technological class. Prior to the microcomputer, the average household was unable to afford one of these machines for personal/home use. Streeter continues to explain that the microcomputer represented a major breakthrough for society, and that people never imagined it would progress as quickly as it did, if at all.

I found a video of the microcomputer so that I could see for myself how different these machines were compared to where we are now with computer technologies, and in comparison to what I remember using for a computer as a child. I came across this video of millennium kids (aged 6-13 years old), who have only ever been exposed to the modern computers/desktops/laptops we use today. The video shows them tinkering around with one of the first Apple microcomputers from the late 70s/early 80s, trying to figure out how to use its most basic functions. I found it very interesting to see how something that was once a breakthrough is now obsolete. The introduction of the microcomputer to the market was a huge milestone and changed the way our society functions, however it is unknown by many and forgotten by others.

I believe that when the microcomputer became available to the public in the 80s, that the level of confusion among users may have been similar to that of the kids in the video, however of course there would have been greater excitement. The part that is most shocking to me, is that the microcomputer in only about 30 years old. Although 30 years seems like a long time, it’s unbelievable how quickly the computer has advanced and the features modern computers now offer. The functions of the microcomputer have progressed rapidly over the past 30 years and we as a society are becoming more comfortable adapting to these technologies. As we see in this video, the foundations of these technologies are forgotten as technology increases rapidly. 

Do you think that all technological commodities are advancing as quickly as the computer (examples)? Do you think in another 30 years the computers we use today will be completely obsolete, or will the advancements begin to slow?

History of Web 2.0 and Entrepreneurship

Hi everyone,

 

Alice Marwick discusses how to succeed in a postmodern American consumer capitalist world. In other words Marwick refers to how the social media age in combination with the Web 2.0 has encouraged  entrepreneurship skills, self promotion and self editing. Throughout the history of Web 2.0, forms of social media like blogs and vlogs have allowed for individuals to obtain fame and fortune persay, by their personal success in online engagement.

With this in mind, Mommy Blogs and Mommy Vlogs include personal experiences about family and home life. These blogs and vlogs demonstrate how information-based capitalist social formations can allow for those who are usually known to the private sphere, like family life, to be widened into the public sphere as well. Mommy blogs and vlogs include cultural imaginaries of social being and belonging. These blogs have given online outlets for women specifically to explore the similarities, challenges and accomplishments of Motherhood. The popular Mommy Blogs demonstrate how the blogger may feel as though she is being transformed or being enabled to transcend into a higher part of themselves. Digital communities of women can come together to further explore their lives, while the popular and famous bloggers or vloggers can have financial gain of their reputation within their online engagement.

 

During the lecture that had just passed, we discussed what romanticism meant in relation to topics in our course. Would you say that this grouping of blogs and vlogs further romanticize interactive computing? If romanticism includes a quest for experience, how do blogs and vlogs represent this? And if so, do the notion of blogs and vlogs differ?

Is the Internet a Myth?

The article “Myth and Cyberspace” by Vincent Mosco explores myths about technology, he states that they do not meet the expectations we have on reality and the newest developments do not mark the newest way of life; moreover they are a fabrication of the truth. The myth here lies in the fact that new developments are noted to change the world and have a large impact on society, which is a false reality.

Do you agree with Moscos view? Looking at an iPhone or laptop, we see little change with newer versions, although these new technologies have changed the behaviour of society, these developments have not had a larger impact on the way we communicate. However, the Internet compared to the radio has drastically changed the way we communicate; it brought us from a one-to-many means of communication compared to a many-to-many means of communicating.

What other technological developments have been portrayed as having a larger impact on society, in reality they haven’t? Do believe that the Internet will remain the most important development or will a new technology emerge?

Social Construction View on New Contraception Technology

We’ve talked about in class how technology is talked a lot about in a technological determinism point of view, in a cause and effect manner, looking at what are the impacts on society. We discussed how we should really be looking at not just the impacts of technology on society, but how technology is created and shaped by social forces as well. Technological, economic and social forces are all interconnected.

The Bimek SLV, a new contraception method for men, is a valve that is inserted on each spermatic duct in men’s bodies and disrupts the flow of sperm cells when closed, which is controlled with a flip of a switch. This is an operation that provides a life time of sperm cell flow control, eliminating the use of hormonal medication as a contraceptive. Using a social construction method you could say that this technology might have been created due to the discourse around the health risks of hormonal pills on women’s bodies and the debate that men should be responsible for contraception as well. If this technology is launched in the market and becomes popular, it could pose a threat to capitalism in the pharmaceutical industry as big source of revenue is from continuous consumption of birth control pills bought by women. What other social forces might have been the cause of the invention of this technology and what positive or negative impacts might it have on society? Is this a technology you think people will use or is it an example of technology going too far?