This reading was a tightly woven overview of not only an/the African American relation to technology, specifically links to digital technology as well as general concepts of technology, it is also another clear gate opening into class issues with technology. It calls to the front row the at-stake issues of the Digital Divide. It also looks at the effective employment of technologies by African Americans as well as the interwoven technologies that are in place as preventive artifacts blocking a type of mobility for African Americans.
I found the African American relations to technology to be particularly interesting. For all of my affinity with digital tools used composition of various types I have a rather large blind-spot when it comes to more “conventional” employment of communicative modes. Ironically, the rhetorical practices of the “mundane” pass me by.
The three instances in particular that caught me of-guard were the oratory skills of Martian Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, the use of quilting, and the Sermon.
I have not really observed King and X in action other than the popular snippets used by mass media up until the lat 80s and early 90s (which is when I ceased my consumption of mass media) and documentaries. The account of their oration and verbal sparing is a real revelation in that regard for me. I now will be seeking out these particular instances to alleviate this ignorance in myself.
Aside from the specific use of quilting mentioned by Banks, quilting as a rhetorical device is not something I have really thought about. This is quite sad considering my mother is a quilter (I have a couple of her masterpieces in my possession) who explains her designs and why she does what she does. In other words, she tells me about her rhetorical choices in creating her quilts. Reading about this practice was a real palm to forehead moment for me.
Having been raised in a Southern Methodist/Baptist household i am quite familiar with the sermon. It is, in fact, a mode of communication i am capable of myself though I have never had the need to use it after age 12. thinking of it in terms of it being a technology is something relatively new for me. Even having attended and given a sermon i had not really recognized that the sermon, as a technology, kind of avoids other technologies. Even if a sermon were to be recorded in any fashion a lot is lost in that conversion from one technological manifestation to another. The sermon in its original state is very much a multimedia form as well as interactive.
What these three rhetorical practices framed as African American expression use of cultural technologies tells those of us looking across the Digital Divide attempting to figure out how we can effectively cross that chasm is that just because we cannot see engagement with “cutting edge” digital technology it does not mean that the effort to use such technologies is not there. Does that mean there is easy and freedom of access? Not, it does not. my personal experiences as a student teacher at Peoria High School tells me as much.
It is here were I agree with some key points in Banks’ explanation of the situation. Yeas, due to the economic, the social, and legal blocks built into the cultural fabric of The United States it is very difficult for African Americans to truly have access to such technologies. While reading this book I looked at census data about the population of people of African decent. In that I saw that, as of 2005 12.8 percent of the national population is estimated to be of African decent. Though that population is spread across the nation it is not an even spread. Its highest concentrations is around larger urban or metropolitan areas.
The short and simple, though not really all that simple, issue here is that those concentrations are actually in locations with higher poverty rates. The poverty is not a subsequent result of the higher African American population, not as far as I can see. What this means is a dominant portion of the African American population does not have access to public funding, especially in schools, that can provide access to digital technologies, specifically computers and internet connectivity.
In a broader sense this means that African Americans are not only denied equal and true access due to lack of access to better education, they also have to contend with a legal system that favors white America in numerous ways but especially the nasty recursive actions of NCLB. The trick here is that this does not only subject the African American population to this problem but also every person who has been raised in lower economic districts and sectors.
I’m not saying that African Americans need to buck up and deal with this problem, mot at all. What i am saying is that there needs to be some other reform instituted for these areas in The United States. There also needs to be a recognition that in order for the digital Devise to be closed some what the people who occupy the underprivileged demographic need to find worth in learning how to use digital technologies.
Does this mean that people who do not have access to these specific technologies are incapable? No, it dies not. there are other technologies employed by them. will the use of “advanced” technology better the lives of these peoples? I’m not sure any more. I used to think so. I think it could give them a leg up but that is only if they find personal value in such technologies.
In the end, I have many questions with no clear answers. This is something I defiantly will be putting a lot more though into. I have to say that at this point i do not think being computer literate is some kind of holy grail. It would possibly do some serious intellectual, social, and economic healing but only for those who really want to employ it and understand it. I do not think it should be forced. Like so many other things uin this world it should be a choice, not a requirement.
To start, like many others, I hate the bio. In a bio we are supposed to tell the digital world of our deepest interests such as game design theory, digital literacies, multimodal composition, technical writing, rhetoric, and social media. Additionally, we are encouraged to reveal personal information such as the fact that I am happily married to a wonderful woman, I like cake and pie, or that I am really into cutie things like puppies and bunnies. Further more, we need to communicate our goals and dreams of starting a digital entertainment company or some day working for one as a producer or developer and/or work as a teacher teaching digital composition/development/design. finally we are also encouraged to provide education information such as I have a B.S. in english education (high school) and am almost finished with a masters in technical communication/rhetoric/new media composition and design.
All of this is to be done in roughly a paragraph with out being too detailed but still informative.
Good post Jonathan. I wanted to clarify something. You mention that “There also needs to be a recognition that in order for the digital Devise to be closed some what the people who occupy the underprivileged demographic need to find worth in learning how to use digital technologies.” A lot of truth to this, but would it not be more accurate to say that to close the digital divide people who occupy the underprivileged areas need to be allowed equal access to these technologies? This of course includes proper localization and education in the range of uses these technologies have. But I do not think that people HAVE to find worth in learning it. I was in an AP Biology class in High School. Had the chance to take it. Took it. Decided it wasn’t worth learning. But I had access to it. It was not necessary for me to find it worthwhile after the fact. But this brings up a good point:
How can we measure when the digital divide has been closed (or narrowed)? Do we measure it in acceptance or access? I do not deem either as a wrong answer. But it is tough to tell. How do we measure progress in this instance?
How we determine the measure of progress is really my question. That is coupled with the idea of equal access resides for me. What is equal access? What constitutes equal access? I think Banks is looking this very same question at the bottom of page 137 when he says
“Access to technology means so much more than the presence of a particular tool, and definition of access that do not acknowledge how complex a problem it is are, in fact fraudulent, and will not serve to do anything meaningful for people who have consistently been denied anything close to real participation in our society.”
In my research of the digital immigrant and native I ran into the numbers he criticizes in that section and scrutinized them. I came to the exact same conclusions he does. They create an illusion of a closing gap, an illusion that is accepted as fact. The reality is the gap is not closing. however, another reality I came to realize in that research is the number of people in general that have access is actually much lower than many realize. even in talking to students at ISU I have seen evidence that not everyone has the access we are led to believe.
It is true that some have more ready access than others which is largely determined by family income. Still, the number of young people who use a computer for much more than homework (typing papers and doing a bit of research) is not as high as we are led to believe. Hand written papers in high schools was still the norm in 2005 (when I last taught).
So, this further convolutes the question of equal access because the numbers that constitute “access” in the first place are not commensurate with reality. this is really the issue I was attempting to get at with my mention of demographic data and the need to “close the divide”. Really, I see the divide most present in the ability to go to college or lack-there-of. This issue has more to do with the economic divide of the impoverished which is why I mentioned that particular segment of the population. The divider is the culture of poverty and the value of a job-right-now over the value of a job after you have been in school for four more years racking up inevitable debt that, given the cultural grounding active here, you will never ever be able to pay off.
Those who live in a state of poverty are forced by the culture of the impoverished to take up the mantel of “adult” and “provider” at a much younger age, often before even graduating from high school. The importance of a college degree, which also has digital literacies wrapped up with it, is not as high as being able to feed your family therefore investment in learning “digital citizenship” is not a of a premium.
The notion of equal access is post hand-to-mouth survival. The effort should be made to circumvent the culture of poverty, to get in at the root of the problem, to foster the desire for equal access. With out the desire there is no need, from the perspective of the subject that we deem should have the desire, for equal access.
I think the real issue is not a lack of access as much as it is a question of solving the poverty problem, a problem that, as of yet, society had determined cannot be solved.
I wholeheartedly agree with your finals thoughts in your response comment, Jonathan. The poverty problem is the root of what we’re dealing with.
I think, though, that this is exactly where Banks might say that *meaningful* access comes in. For example, in your original post, you discussed population stratification and then concluded that “What this means is a dominant portion of the African American population does not have access to public funding, especially in schools, that can provide access to digital technologies, specifically computers and internet connectivity.” Based on the experiences of the many teachers I know who work in state designated high-poverty districts, this simply isn’t the case. (At least not in Illinois; I can’t speak for other places.) My mother works in a high-poverty school in Logan County that has multiple SMARTboards–a quite expensive technology–that were purchased through a grant. My husband works in a high-poverty, high-minority (read: Black) school in Springfield, and every single teacher was given a brand new MacBook at the beginning of the year because, as I understand it, the school had to spend the money allotted to it by the state for technology. Access to the hardware is not a problem in most Illinois schools. (Notice the “most.” I don’t claim to have knowledge of all Illinois schools, but I suspect my experience has been relived throughout the state.)
But *meaningful* access is a huge problem. These students do not understand why these technologies are relevant to their lives, and the teachers who are “given” these technologies don’t get any training on how to use them, let alone how to use them as pedagogical tools. When teachers have to spend more and more time trying to learn technology in order to teach it, other areas of education–which can also provide access for students–suffer. Our high-poverty classroom teachers are in a Catch-22. If they try to teach technology, they risk dropping ISAT scores under NCLB. But if they teach reading and math, they are accused of widening the digital divide.
OK, let me get down off my the-school-system-is-a-mess soapbox now.
I was also really intrigued by your admission that you’re not sure the use of “advanced” technology will better the lives of underserved populations. This is a question I’ve come to ask as well. And I also used to think technology is always good and wanted, as you say. I agree that it could give people “a leg up but that is only if they find personal value in such technologies.” And you’ve hit the nail on the head with that last bit, I think. This reminds me of how the European settlers came in and devalued the technologies of the Indians. Who are we to tell people who don’t want computers that they have to own/understand/use them?
My experience as a public high school teacher ended in 2005. Though some new tech may have filtered in I can’t image 4 years will have made that much of a difference, really. Call me a pessimist if you want. I think of my self as a pragmatist in this.