A wholesome way of thinking

One of the many things I begin to think in week 3 and week 4 readings are the different ways of categorization. In my opinion, the categorization that I noticed seems to enable a very different way of thinking.

In Chapter 2, page, 64: “If we can think about resistance as an important element of computers and writing histories, then we reinforce our collective investment in the careful and responsible use of technologies” (Inman). If we check the assumptions of this statement, it is easy to see that resistance of computer is not regarded as foreign/external to computers; therefore, it is not posed in this theoretical framework as the opposite force and does not form a binary pair with the computer. The underlying importance is that this way of categorization allows us to think the resistance as part of the big picture. Mapping and analyzing such resistance enables us to improve computer technology, or to see computer technology in multifaceted lights.

The description on page 15 of Chapter 1 also used different categorization:
“One of the puzzling elements of technology use is the way many individuals imagine computers and other technologies as fixed, static innovations to be adopted or resisted, rather than as fluid innovations that can be adapted.” Rather than suggesting us thinking context as being passive and invisible in the background, it enables us to foreground the context and thinking technology, persons, and contexts as equitable elements that jointly established, control, support, and limit each other. In this way, the understanding is no longer the binary thinking, but takes more complex forms of different and specific power dynamics. I think this way of categorization, and the theoretical potential enabled by it composes a new feature of my study and my way of perceiving the world.