Comments on: Rural broadband

By: ks

ks — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:22:17 +0000

a bit of an overreaction, no disrespect intended and i certainly meant none for katie stewart and her work. just letting people talk goes towards some of the complexity that exists beyond the pale, i look forward to reading the piece in csr cheers

By: MC

MC — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:48:48 +0000

It would probably clarify things if I mentioned that my talk was framed around these kinds of images! Anyway, I will be writing a longer version of the paper for a forthcoming special issue of Cultural Studies Review on the ethics of rural cultural studies, so I will certainly clarify those details there.

By: MC

MC — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:39:03 +0000

Hi Kim, Thanks… I think I agree with what you’re saying at the end of this but somehow the argument I thought I was making got lost? It wasn’t Lauren Berlant’s reading but my use of a number of different ideas in the section you quote, but yeah, people can certainly make those choices themselves given the opportunity.

By: kim satchell

kim satchell — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:17:18 +0000

i guess i miss the point of technology- and what is that again?

By: kim satchell

kim satchell — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:13:47 +0000

rural broadband or remote broadband pitched on the premise of “the space on the side of the road” – those who live in the areas that city dwellers might enjoy as they drive past but only because they do not stop for very long…is riven with such elitist shite – (apologies to lauren berlant) somewhere between self-flatulent cultural cringing and belligerent disregard, I am not sure the ‘folk’ are as convinced of the inexorable advantages of getting on board or being left behind- and I am not sure there is an argument so convincing that does not smack of elitist self-interest. great to see the blog kick’n ’09.

By: melgregg

melgregg — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:03:26 +0000

With thanks to Jane, this story is timely, fitting, mobilising...

By: Michael McNally

Michael McNally — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:36:44 +0000

I understand what you are saying dider, but I fear you may be barking up the wrong tree and conflating a few issues. To what pre-technology social utopia would you take us back to? The victorian era when entertainment for the wealthy was formal parlour games, songs and dances (for the poor it was survival)? Or should we just go back to a time when we supposedly all sat around listening to the wireless as part of our social relationships? How has the fact that I am on facebook impacted on the fact that I chat to my neighbours every other day and know a lot of people in my local community through my children’s school/childcare/sport? Perhaps you feel a profound loss of social connectedness, but is technology to blame? Or is it (imagined) others who are socially disconnected?

Particularly for marginalised groups in rural and remote communities (the example of same-sex-oriented people leaps to mind) this technology might connect them to people they might otherwise never have connected with. Pretty hard when you are the only gay in the village and you need someone to talk to and there is no internet.

As for decreased civility, anything other than anecdotal evidence to work with? There have always been rude people. I am not even sure what loss of behavioural boudaries means but it sounds liberating!!

My 2c

Michael

By: didier grossemy

didier grossemy — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:05:18 +0000

Are we connected or socially disconnected…I personally believe that technology has reduced our social capital—the relationships that bind people together and create a sense of community. Consequences include decreased civility, loss of behavioural boundaries and increased crime. We must find ways to deal with our profound loss of social connectedness.Even though technological advances have contributed significantly to the problem of isolation, the emphasis on individualism in today’s society has compounded it.