World Dialogue on Regulation

This demand side investigation proposes a particular theoretical framework to analyze social, economic, and political impact of mobile phones in Latin America – based on three cultural modes of technology appropriation: baroque, creolization and cannibalism. According to the authors, these modes exhibit different levels of confrontational stances in the three-step cyclical process of technology evolution: adoption, appropriation and re-configuration between user and provider. This confrontation negotiates “power and control over the configuration of the technology, its uses, and the distribution of its benefits.”

The way in which these three modes of technology appropriation take place is arbitrary and depends on the innovation capabilities and multiple of strategies that each individual or community can develop. For instance, baroque users would tend to adhere to manuals and personalize their devices as recommended by the providers. Creolization users would go a little beyond that, recombining the original device with other components resulting in something new (a kind of bricolage). Cannibal users, in turn, dismantle, destroy or conceal the original device to create something new that represents who they are and what they feel.
  
The framework’s central point is based on that moment of appropriation and re-invention, in which technology is altered in a learning-by-doing process. This can be a tranquil process or an escalating confrontation to gain power. Using mobile handset to make calls or to send SMS messages, for example, are the indicated ways to engage what providers have left in the store’s aisles and consequently stimulate “cooperative relationships” between users and providers to establish a learning space that benefits both sides.

Although very interesting in terms of the literature review and the way in which the authors justify negotiation channels by the three appropriation modes, the theoretical framework needs to be complemented by further practical studies to be able to analyze and evaluate impact of technology in the region. Qualitative data are precious but impossible to generalize and conduct comparative analyses. A possible solution could be to establish the basis for an ethnographic study about the uses of mobile phones in remote Latin American locations.

Latin America has a very diverse population with varied and unequal access to and opportunity for appropriation of basic services. Poor and rich people have completely different technology appropriation modes. Although both share the fascination for new gadgets and participate in different way of the technology evolution’s three-steps that the authors describe, beyond consumption, the poor have virtually no possibility of negotiation with corporations or to obtain benefits of that learning dialogue. Hackers are one of the only privileged groups to put the cannibalism step into practice due to their particular skill set and the high interest that corporations have on what they can do. An example of this is the iPhoneDevCamp, where 300 hackers gathered during July 2007 in San Francisco to collectively unlock the iPhone’s mysteries in a non-sanctioned Apple environment. As described at the Aboporu website, this was a vivid antagonistic meeting of the cannibalism variety.  
 
It is evident that mobile phones are no longer luxury or elite devices (due to their high penetration rates) but it is not so clear the different social, economic and political benefits that they provide. That is the reason, along to the diverse and asymmetrical Latin American social and cultural patterns, to conduct different kinds of investigations and complementary studies to shed light on how mobile technology can impact on peoples’ lives.

On the policy or regulatory side, it would be interesting to explore the implications that the three-step cyclical process of technology evolution could have. Key questions to answer would include: How are re-configuration negotiations set up? Who participates in these negotiations and under what conditions? Who controls the new ideas and discoveries (copyright or creative commons)? Is technology re-configuration an individual or collective action? How do exchanges evolve into a learning process?

Francis Pisani is from the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México