{"id":969,"date":"2016-06-22T05:40:28","date_gmt":"2016-06-22T10:40:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.education4site.org\/blog\/?p=969"},"modified":"2021-09-07T08:38:43","modified_gmt":"2021-09-07T13:38:43","slug":"metaphors-and-technological-change-a-double-edged-sword","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.education4site.org\/blog\/2016\/metaphors-and-technological-change-a-double-edged-sword\/","title":{"rendered":"Metaphors and technological change: A double-edged sword"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Are

Are these the same device?<\/p><\/div>\n

Edit 07.09.21: I discovered some time ago that, at about the same time that I posted this article, the Futures journal published a special issue on metaphors in futures studies<\/a>.<\/em> There are subtle differences between my take and those of the authors published in the special issue, but we’re essentially all dealing with similar issues.<\/em><\/p>\n

A smartwatch is not a watch, no more than a smartphone is a phone. Both are sophisticated computerized networking and sensing devices that we carry either in our pocket or on our wrist. When we talk about these devices we metaphorically relate them to familiar devices to create a sense of continuity when we are faced with what are really radical new technologies. And, we carry the metaphors even further. They\u2019re not only used to provide a way to talk about something new, they also influence the way that these new technologies are designed and marketed. Together, the metaphors and imagery derived from them help to ease the potential shock of significant and dramatic technological changes. Sooner or later, however, change catches up with us and we no longer need our metaphorical crutches (see what I did there?) to relate. That\u2019s when things start to get really interesting. At that point we can start asking the really tricky questions, like what does a <\/span>smartphone<\/span><\/i> become when it\u2019s no longer a <\/span>phone<\/span><\/i>?<\/span><\/p>\n

In this article I want to talk about two things. The first is how we use metaphors to gradually ease into new meaningful contexts that might otherwise be uncomfortably disruptive. The second is how we can start to create new futures by looking beyond current metaphors. Both are important parts of how we deal with technological and social change and demonstrate how we can deliberately use metaphors to expand our temporal horizons to plan for unseen futures.<\/span><\/p>\n

What\u2019s in a name?<\/b><\/p>\n

There is an old adage that is commonly associated with R. W. Emerson:<\/span><\/p>\n

Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

The meaning is most often taken to be that if you perfect a common device, people will seek you out to get their hands on it. The most important element here is that it is a \u201ccommon\u201d device, i.e. the device is familiar to us, easily recognizable and performs a task that we consider to be important. Say that I\u2019ve invented a <\/span>whizzywig<\/span><\/i> that promises to do everything that a mousetrap will do, only better. Are people going to pave a highway to my house to get at it? Probably not. They\u2019re more likely to scratch their heads and ask, \u201cUh\u2026 What\u2019s a <\/span>whizzy-whatever<\/span><\/i>?\u201d At that point it doesn\u2019t matter that it is a better mousetrap unless people recognize it as a mousetrap. Had I called my invention a <\/span>mousetrap-omatic<\/span><\/i> rather than a <\/span>whizzywig<\/span><\/i> things might have been different. The point is this: You may build a device that is better than any other at catching mice, but if you call it anything other than a mousetrap, will anyone realize what you\u2019ve done?<\/span><\/p>\n

To put this into a more familiar\u00a0context: Imagine that Steve Jobs had gotten on a stage in 2007 and said, \u201cOh, one more little thing\u2026 I give you: the NETworked COmputerized SENsing DEvice or <\/span>NETCOSENDER!<\/span><\/i> We believe that it\u2019s going to change the world.\u201d I don\u2019t think he would have made much of a splash with a pitch like that. What he actually did proved far more effective. He showed us a new <\/span>phone<\/span><\/i>, called the <\/span>iPhone<\/span><\/i>, that did a lot of interesting things other than what we would have expected of a phone at the time. In that context in which the iPhone was introduced a phone was a necessity and those other features were pretty neat add-ons. But, the iPhone, along with all the smartphones that have followed, has never really been a phone, except in a metaphorical sense. It has always been a networked computerized sensing device that can make phone calls, too. Likewise for the smartwatch – the \u201cwatch\u201d is only a metaphor that signifies to us that it is an accessory that\u2019s worn on a strap on the wrist. Sure, it tells time, but if that\u2019s all you use it for then you don\u2019t have much use for a smartwatch.<\/span><\/p>\n

Metaphors are bridges across contexts<\/b><\/p>\n

Using metaphors to refer to novel technologies accomplishes several things:<\/span><\/p>\n