Actividades de ampliación

The changes that mobile and wireless communication technologies have brought to our experience of everyday life are not only analysed in terms of the blurring boundaries of the public and private. As Ling and Campbell (2009) argue, having mobile communication technologies with us most of the time can convey the message that we are reachable, and thus available for communication at any time and at any place. This affects how one coordinates everyday life in both work and leisure activities. These days, people can phone, text, send multimedia or instant messages, and tweet each other about the venue and time of a specific activity, leading to flexibility in the coordination of spontaneous relations, making use of the flexibility that can be attributed our mobilities.

Since carrying mobile communication technologies conveys the message that one is available for communication at any time, users of these technologies inevitably carry their workplaces into their personal lives. Although this thesis does not focus primarily focus on this boundary between work and personal life, it is important for us in our understanding of space as a part of everyday life. By saying that there is a boundary between our workspace and our personal life/space, issues of telepresence and co-location come into mind. Thus, the second important change brought about by mobile communication technologies, as discussed by Ling and Campbell (2009), is discussed in this thesis not to show how mobile and

locative media blur these boundaries, but to show how those boundaries among different types of spaces can change with the usage of these technologies.

As Katz (2006) argues, the modern individual, as being a part of this mobile information society, experiences the ability to control daily complexities with the help of mobile communication technologies, but at the same time realizes the real

potential of being able to do that. In other words, carrying a mobile with them all the time makes the user sometimes feel empowered. This can also explain why users of mobile communication technologies may feel “unsecure” when they are lost. In a study investigating the motives associated with the adoption of mobile phones, Ling and Haddon (2003, p.246) argue that safety and security is one function brought by mobile phone use, listed alongside accessibility, display and coordination. Cumiskey (2008, p.25) also discusses the importance of coordination, accessibility and display, suggesting that ‘the psychological sense of always having someone with you (via the mobile phone in the pocket) is very powerful. The fact that any user can

immediately call someone, fire off an email or text message, means they have constant access to a witness who can share an experience.’

The importance of mobile communication technologies in coordinating our everyday lives is not based only on their generative nature, which allow users (to some extent) to customise software and content, but also on their becoming extensions of their users. ‘Hence, as elements of daily routine, wireless technologies, especially the mobile phone, are perceived as essential instruments of contemporary life. When they fail, users tend to feel lost because of the dependency relationship that has developed with the technology’ (Castells, 2007, p.77).

When a medium becomes part of everyday life, it is in certain ways – in its

‘everydayness’ – ‘de-problematized’. After initial eruptions, which most media technologies experience before they are incorporated into everyday life, people do not only get used to the medium, but they suddenly cannot imagine living without this medium any longer. This applies especially to the mobile phone (Höflich and Hartmann, 2006, pp.11-12).

This dependency relationship shows just how synchronized daily activities with mobile technologies can be, and how they have become important, and for some people, even indispensable. In a study conducted by Turkle (2008), a BlackBerry user said; ‘I glance at my watch to sense the time; I glance at my

BlackBerry to get a sense of my life’ (p.129). The body acts as an integral part of the technology and vice versa (Campbell, 2008, p.153); and so for some people, to some extent, the body becomes dependent on the mobile technology and forms a

symbiotic relationship with mobility. Kopomaa (2000) discusses this pervasive

nature of mobile technologies and the dependency on them as part of a society, which he conceptualizes as the “mobile information society”. That said, it would be an exaggerated assumption to consider everyone as a mobile technology user, because a more important component in the diffusion of a particular technology is its availability and that of the associated infrastructure. As stated by Sarker and Wells,

‘[...] individual characteristics, technological characteristics, communication task characteristics, context, and modalities of mobility all contributed to different patterns of adoption and use’ (Sarker and Wells cited in Castells et al., 2007, p.72).

Also ‘what the data so far tells us is that ethnicity and/or culture do not act as barriers to the acquisition of mobile communication devices, but may limit the range of applications and services that users have access to, and/or are interested in using’ (Castells et al., 2007, p.67).

Hence, it is necessary to consider also non-users of a particular technology such as mobile phones when talking about a mobile information society. Non-users can be defined as people who either have no access to such technologies, or who choose not to use them, whether for individual, cultural or economic reasons. In this regard, non-users should also be seen as part of Kopomaa’s mobile information society, which can be considered as ‘a new kind of society that both makes possible and necessitates mobile phone-oriented sociability as the non-user of a mobile phone may soon find her/himself “a member of a disappearing tribe”,’ (Strassoldo, 2005, p.43) and non-users sometimes ‘find it difficult to manage common, everyday life things in the mobile phone-saturated society’ (Oksman, 2010, p.25). On the other hand, there still exist users of conventional mobile phones who want to use their phones only for the placing of calls, and have no desire to transform their mobile companions into mobile computers:

Call me old-fashioned. The other week I wanted to buy a cell phone – you know, to make phone calls. I did not want a video game, a still camera, a web access device, an MP3 player, or a game system. I also was not interested in something that could show me movie previews, would have customizable ring tones, or would allow me to read novels. I did not want the electronic equivalent of a Swiss army knife […] The sales clerks sneered at me; they laughed at me behind my back. I was told by company after mobile company that they do not make single-function phones anymore.

Nobody wants them. This was a powerful demonstration of how central mobiles have become to the process of media convergence (Jenkins, 2006, pp.4–5).

Although both non-users and users make up this mobile information society, there is a certain pattern of dependency on mobile phones, despite the limitations on what can be accomplished with them (Katz, 2006). Due to the amount of information stored on such mobile devices, when they are lost or stolen, people often feel as if they lost an important part of their lives.

The mobile phone is quite important to many users, and in my interviews I frequently hear people say, with hyperbole, that if they lost their mobile phone they would die. After all, it contains so much of their lives, as well as serving as their phone book, calendar, and clock. In fact, losing one’s mobile is in some ways like losing one’s mind (Katz, 2006, p.5).

However, it also worth noting that with Cloud technology, users can now upload and store all their data on servers, and in this regard, dependency on a particular device is in some ways diminishing, so long as you can reach all the information (whether it be your contacts, calendar or even documents) you need remotely from another device. That said, you still need a similar technology to replace the one that you used to have. In the case of smartphones, this dependency relationship is formed largely around the various applications and content offered to the user, as well as increasing number of services provided by way of mobile

applications. Both computers and the Internet have many functions in everyday life:

information, communication, business transactions, work, education and

entertainment, and its only competitors in fulfilling all these functions may be the telephone (van Dijk, 2005, p.101) and smartphone, which combines all these functions with mobility, and has replaced the conventional telephone and even

“normal” mobile phones.