Our Commodities, Ourselves

Gitelman and Haltman both argue that technologies in their respective periods invoke femininity to ease the user's transition from the old to the new. If the manufacturers of phonographs and telephones had to position their products as feminine, domestic, and personal (or has having a kind of personality), in what forms has this kind of personal identification survived? How do we now cope with new technologies, in a world of niche products and targeted marketing?

I don't really have an answer - this blog is ultimately a shameful excuse to post the above video. I think it's safe to say, however, that personal identification with technology is more important than ever. I think we tend to see ourselves as fully transitioned into our postmodern, posthument era, but our advertising belies this assumption. Apple's TV spots come to mind - the ones with the hip young guy in jeans and the old stuffed shirt. If you'd rather hava a beer with the Mac guy, well, you'd rather have a beer with a Mac. Even without Apple's ads, they've built this idea of "personality" into the way their products work - as in the ipod's request that you give it a name on your computer.

In our cultural characterization, we have slotted contemporary gadgets into the role of domestic assistants - sometimes by invoking gender or race, other times by simply positioning them as human. I also wonder if this positioning relies on the global structure of technological production and support. If my ipod was made in China, and its support network is in India, isn't it a tad disturbing that it's positioned as my servant?