The first ever phone assembled in 1876 had the role of connecting the distant world and was perceived as a symbol of unity. However, more than two centuries of critical analysis have proven that the phone is nothing more than a symbol of oppression. The modern western phone company of the likes of Apple is too slavishly dependent on the exploitative and depersonalizing working standards of many of the underdeveloped countries such as China and the Democratic Republic of Congo--countries that are known to assemble the phone and quarry the minerals needed in a typical phone--and cannot survive without their existence. In DR Congo, underpaid miners toil for inordinate hours to produce the minerals needed in the average phone. The same applies
…show more content…
Clearly, the phone company is aware of its actions. The ability to overlook the suffrage of the working class is what has enabled the development of the phone. Without the exploitation of the working class, the rate of production for the phone would decline, and so would the wealth of many of the phone manufacturing companies. As a society, we have been taught to appreciate the level of convenience the phone affords us through interpellation. This is what has ultimately prevented society from attacking the phone, and is what has given the phone its power of oppression. Before the phone was introduced in 1876, society relied on other--albeit minimally oppressive--methods of exchanging news, such as letter writing. The phone successfully disrupted these rudimentary mediums not because they were inefficacious, but because the phone company indoctrinated us to appreciate the phone. Simply put, the meme of modernity that the phone is best medium of communication was not congenital: the belief was merely inculcated into our heads with or without our knowledge. Given the level of oppression that the phone is inflicting on the working class, the phone would not have stood a chance had it not been for the phone company’s …show more content…
The western phone industry has been successful, but the working classes in Asia and Africa have not, some stagnating or sliding back in terms of wealth, even. Each year, new generations of phones are released, unleashing a great sum of money for the western market. But only a measly amount of this money is channeled to the working class, even if the working class deserves a much larger share. A larger fraction of collected money is integrated into the western market, and success is only reflected in the west, not in Asia or Africa where if it wasn’t for their workforce and mines, respectively, the phone as we know it would be nonexistent. Therefore, the phone is a symbol of oppression and inequality. It’s original symbol of uniting the world is far overridden by its stark representation of oppression. Behind each phone is a story of death, and depersonalized as well as regimented lives. It cannot be that our love for the phone is a natural one. The society despises the phone because in no way does it symbolize unity: It is a symbol of
Clearly, the phone company is aware of its actions. The ability to overlook the suffrage of the working class is what has enabled the development of the phone. Without the exploitation of the working class, the rate of production for the phone would decline, and so would the wealth of many of the phone manufacturing companies. As a society, we have been taught to appreciate the level of convenience the phone affords us through interpellation. This is what has ultimately prevented society from attacking the phone, and is what has given the phone its power of oppression. Before the phone was introduced in 1876, society relied on other--albeit minimally oppressive--methods of exchanging news, such as letter writing. The phone successfully disrupted these rudimentary mediums not because they were inefficacious, but because the phone company indoctrinated us to appreciate the phone. Simply put, the meme of modernity that the phone is best medium of communication was not congenital: the belief was merely inculcated into our heads with or without our knowledge. Given the level of oppression that the phone is inflicting on the working class, the phone would not have stood a chance had it not been for the phone company’s …show more content…
The western phone industry has been successful, but the working classes in Asia and Africa have not, some stagnating or sliding back in terms of wealth, even. Each year, new generations of phones are released, unleashing a great sum of money for the western market. But only a measly amount of this money is channeled to the working class, even if the working class deserves a much larger share. A larger fraction of collected money is integrated into the western market, and success is only reflected in the west, not in Asia or Africa where if it wasn’t for their workforce and mines, respectively, the phone as we know it would be nonexistent. Therefore, the phone is a symbol of oppression and inequality. It’s original symbol of uniting the world is far overridden by its stark representation of oppression. Behind each phone is a story of death, and depersonalized as well as regimented lives. It cannot be that our love for the phone is a natural one. The society despises the phone because in no way does it symbolize unity: It is a symbol of