Coelynn McIninch

AIB MFA

September 2008

Colonization With a Twist

There is a new form of colonialism on the horizon and it is changing the face of human communication. It is a digital colonization and it is altering the culture, economy, language and basic structure of human interaction. Whether it is for the better or the worse is a debate that can ultimately be narrowed down to questions of power and perception.

Unlike the traditional turn-of-the-century colonization that included physical occupation, oppression and exploitation, today’s communication technologies virtual eliminate the need for a costly physical insurgence. It is by subtle insinuation and careful marketing that a culture or society is “technologized.” The reasons behind the push for technology in non-tech cultures are actually quire similar to that of the early European colonists. They run the full gamut of intention from noble visions of social change to grand schemes of international profit. Whatever the goal, when a new communication technology is “offered”, the receiving culture is irreversibly altered.

Cell phones and the internet are two of the most insidious bits of technology because of their unique ability to deliver a seemingly constant stream of information, culture and language from sources far beyond the physical, and socio-political borders that the user is centered in. All that is needed to culturally infest a society is the mass circulation of an accessible communication technology that enables ideas and culture to be piped in from across the globe. The effect is inevitable; once the ideas are disseminated, assimilated and propagated, they become a permanent part of the history of the accepting culture resulting in a hybridized notion of local history. Carried to the extreme the fear would be that of massive cultural dilution. According to Vijay Mishra and Bob Hodge, the “absence of cultural specificity leads to cultural collapse”(280). The specific quote refers to the cultural dilution and disempowerment that occurred during the 18th and 19th century European expansion and colonization but the sentiment still applies.

The lure of the power of technology lies is in a perceived omnipresence and social “freedom”. The truth is that owning a piece of communication technology tethers the user to the supplier, the repair man, the service provider and the need for bigger, better, and faster versions. “The need for the commodity to present itself as always new, different, desirable, mask[s] the underlying, unchanging nature of capitalist relations to production (Williams, Chrisman) The desire for offered power will generally last only so long as the sacrifice for that power remains minimal. Any extensive accommodations must be bought or bribed and it is the illusion of empowerment that is essential to the mass distribution of any product or idea.

Forces of oppression are not always so obvious as stolen land or military presence. Accelerated rates of innovation and consumption reinforce the imperialistic nature of technological advances. Any society that does not possess enough wealth to research, build and mass produce the technology on their own soil will inevitable be left behind technologically granting outside companies and countries the power to control the shape and scope of technology within that society.

Residents of any high tech culture have spent years adapting to and incorporating technology into their lives to such an extent that the concept of existence without technological assistance seems inconceivable. Just like the more noble ideas of imperialism and colonization, today’s invading tech cultures are viewing the whole negotiation from a position of privilege and power that blinds them to the structure and balance that may be present in a non-tech society. This attitude is exemplified by the persistent use of “mythic speech” to convey assumptions about technological change. Generalizing language touting the universal benefits of technology proposes a direct correlation between technological capabilities and the possibility for social change. For many, advances in communication may seem like a revolution and a necessary step toward global unity. When only 25% of the world’s population has access to the internet, it becomes apparent that he reality of those ideas is still along way off .

Looking to the small patches of society that have been introduced to communication technologies we begin to see the emergence of a specific hybrid sub-culture. Any new knowledge must be assimilated into the existing framework of personal reference. “It is true to a certain extent that our thinking and knowledge are determined by the historical givens of the culture in which we are born that we can name, speak, and think only within the boundaries of our language. (Longxi) Language itself is culture; each word having a history and a source specific to the culture that created it. When cultural elements from one society are introduced into another, the language needed to discuss these elements must necessarily be absorbed as well. The adoption of new language and ideas that are not a part of the local culture creates a language and culture that has no personal historical basis in that society. “The new reckoning with an imperial language both changes the form of the language and marginalizes it politically.” (Mishra,Hodge)

Possibly the deepest level of invading influence occurs at the basic human level. The simple interaction with communication technologies alters the basic human perceptions of distance, time sense and memory. When you can contact the world from the palm of your hand or videophone relatives halfway around the world, the distance between people and places suddenly seems smaller. Everything seems compressed. “Seems” being the operative word in this instance. The apparent closeness and accessibility of the other is balanced against the lack of physical contact confirming the other’s presence. At the same time, the communication is safe because the participants are never physically in danger from the interaction. The human need to connect is encouraged but stifled and incomplete. Technological communication devices take away the senses and the realism of physical sensation and experience. Current trends in technology design are clear evidence to the frustration cause by this incomplete mode of human experience. Computers are covered in “skins.” There are touchscreen interfaces with vibrating feedback. Products are marketed as “i-products” as if they are a part of the human body. Compact, handheld or clip on devices for enhanced sensory input and a hybrid of digitally filtered human experience. A true testament to the success of today’s propaganda and marketing is that we turn to newer, better, faster technology to bring that sensation of reality back. To continue the colonization metaphor, we are using the language of the colonizer (technology) to describe and define the colonized (the human body). We are asking to be fooled because we are unwilling to sacrifice our mythical omnipresence and omniscience.

The idea of digital colonization is not one that is easy to condemn or support. There are many arguments for and against the introduction of advanced technologies into non-tech cultures many of them, commerce, education and salvation being the very same rationalizations behind foreign occupations over the past couple of centuries. Without the obvious target of an invading force to cause social uproar, there is little threat of a swift end to the practice however, “where there is power, there is resistance”(Foucault) and resistance is fuel for action.

Works Cited

Crary, Jonathan. “Critical Reflections.” Art Forum February (1994)

Longxi Zhang. “The Myth of the Other: China in the Eyes of the West.” Critical Inquiry Autumn

(1988)

Mishra, Vijay and Bob Hodge. “What is Post(-)colonialism?.” Colonial Discourse and Post-

Colonial Theory: A Reader. Williams, Patrick, and Laura Chrisman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.

Williams, Patrick, and Laura Chrisman. Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A

Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.