iEverything, iEverywhere, iAnytime

Having never done a media unit before, my understanding of globalisation comes from a background of health and human development. Globalisation to me is a combination of increasing interconnectivity and interdependency between nations, largely as a result of advances in technology.

This definition is by no means exhaustive, and scholar Giddens defines globalisation as, “the intensification of world-wide social relations, which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa" (cited in Rantanen 2005, p. 6).

As shown below, defining globalisation has the potential to get messy.

The iPhone has thrived on the global market, infiltrating almost every developed country and also many developing countries. Promoted by celebrities, the iPhone has quickly become the ‘thing’ to have—the ultimate mark of someone cool or ‘in’. Pennycook suggests that “it is hard to see how we can proceed with any study of language, culture, globalization, and engagement without dealing comprehensively with popular culture” (cited in Coupland 2013, p. 205), illustrating that products like the iPhone that popular culture promote are intrinsically linked to what we value as a homogenised society.

According to business journalist Luke Stangel, Apple has sold 600 million iOS devices (iPod Touches, iPhones, iPads) to date, making the brand easily one of the most popular in the world. Certain applications, or ‘apps’, as they are known, have been designed specifically for the iPhone, such as Snapchat, increasing its exclusivity. By purposely making Apple products incompatible with other PC devices and programs, the company is on the one hand increasing people’s desire to buy them, and on the other, more cynical hand, making people angry.

Has the iPhone really brought us closer together by providing ten different ways to contact the same person simultaneously, or has it just replaced real communication with "quasi-interaction" (cited in Rantanen 2005, p. 10), as scholars Giddens, Thompson and Tomlinson suggest? Has it supposedly made the need for face-to-face interaction redundant? Many parents certainly seem concerned with how much time their children spend on electronic devices, often the iPhone—something that has resulted in numerous cases of cyber bullying.
But that’s another story.

Scholar Thompson proposes that “mediated quasi-interaction is for the most part monological rather than dialogical” (cited in Rantanen 2005, pp. 10-11). This means that all the so called ‘interaction’ we get through avenues like social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter) are actually largely one way; a dissemination of information, rather than true interaction that benefits both or all participants. Although communication with the iPhone does seem easier, is it truly better and more fulfilling?

References:

Apple iPhone 4S ad featuring Zooey Deschanel-Rainy Day 2012, YouTube, Appleadsfull, retrieved 31 July 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWoCppNmapQ>.

Agerbeck, B 2005, Staring at Statues, retrieved 31 July 2013, <http://leeji.wordpress.com/>.

Cyber Bullying 2008, interview, 60 Minutes, 13 April, retrieved 31 July 2013, <http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/liambartlett/444908/cyber-bullies>.

Rantanen, T 2005, The Media and Globalization, Sage, London, pp. 1-18.

Stangel, L 2013, ‘14 Eye-popping Apple statistics from WWDC, told in millions, billions and trillions’, Silicon Valley Business Journal, 31 July 2013, <http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/06/11/14-eye-popping-apple-statistics-from.html?page=all>.