In my opinion MOE is a new way of thinking and experiencing. So one could see its introduction as the introduction of a new technology and then there is a question about what determines intention to use this technology. I think TAM (Technology acceptance model , for example http://www.vvenkatesh.us/Downloads/Papers/fulltext/pdf/2000(2)_MS_Venkatesh_Davis.pdf) and its varieties could be useful.
Roughly speaking the determining factors are:
Perceived usefulness
Perceived ease of use
Social Influence processes
I would also add "finding meaning" (but this is something that develops gradually after a while) and , since here MOE is just one proposal among competing others, one would also take into account its competition with other alternatives. ( I mean there is no CEO pushing this specigic innovation with the relevant power)
How these factors will play out depends on the people that are addressed.
As far as I understand the intended audience of AIME is fully moderized professionals and perhaps managers. (Since I am a semi modern I feel sometimes like peeping throuhgh the hole to the western beauties as they try out the new season of fashion clothes with which they will present themselves to the world).
For that audience perceived ease of use might be smaller than for others (this is what I get from speaking with others who read MOE and seem to find no difficulty understanding concepts that are difficult for me) since there is a lot of previous philosophy and art that prepares the way. Social influence can also be strong (given the academic capital of Latour and other participants) and perhaps "finding meaning". Things must be weaker with respect to competition with other approaches (there are so many available) and perceived usefulness (can Gaia do all the work especially when others think that other approaches can be useful as well).
In the modern audience penetration to a wider audience is an issue too.(I would expect "perceived ease of use" to become much worse)
But I am thinking of another audience. I am thinking of the semi-moderns around the globe. Those that have to live together with fanatic modernized compatriots who think they know everything much better than the "indians"( all those that need constant reengineering to keep up with modern developments ,not just technological developments but also "developments" on what it is to be human). Of course I am mostly influenced by my Greek experience (but Arabs or other Balkan people could go there too and perhaps others as well). (Turks, Russian, Chinese form another category where there are elites try to find a "new way", but this is more complex)
For this audience the MOE offers a new opportunity to discuss with the moderns. Perceived usefulness is high (obviously, if you consider how they are treated by the "modernized" elites) and "finding meaning" could be high. Moreover there are not many other reasonable ways of dealing with the moderns that do not completely pulverize local sources of meaning. But "perceived ease of use" is very bad and social influence processes are also bad (since often the "modernized" elite combined with the soft power of the moderns that the modernized elites consider their own, interepret as their own, usually dominate the public sphere). One should also take into account that some people in semi-modernized countries around the world think that they speak "in the name of tradition" while at the same time they are unreflectively accepting some of the weaker sides of modernization.
Roughly speaking the determining factors are:
Perceived usefulness
Perceived ease of use
Social Influence processes
I would also add "finding meaning" (but this is something that develops gradually after a while) and , since here MOE is just one proposal among competing others, one would also take into account its competition with other alternatives. ( I mean there is no CEO pushing this specigic innovation with the relevant power)
How these factors will play out depends on the people that are addressed.
As far as I understand the intended audience of AIME is fully moderized professionals and perhaps managers. (Since I am a semi modern I feel sometimes like peeping throuhgh the hole to the western beauties as they try out the new season of fashion clothes with which they will present themselves to the world).
For that audience perceived ease of use might be smaller than for others (this is what I get from speaking with others who read MOE and seem to find no difficulty understanding concepts that are difficult for me) since there is a lot of previous philosophy and art that prepares the way. Social influence can also be strong (given the academic capital of Latour and other participants) and perhaps "finding meaning". Things must be weaker with respect to competition with other approaches (there are so many available) and perceived usefulness (can Gaia do all the work especially when others think that other approaches can be useful as well).
In the modern audience penetration to a wider audience is an issue too.(I would expect "perceived ease of use" to become much worse)
But I am thinking of another audience. I am thinking of the semi-moderns around the globe. Those that have to live together with fanatic modernized compatriots who think they know everything much better than the "indians"( all those that need constant reengineering to keep up with modern developments ,not just technological developments but also "developments" on what it is to be human). Of course I am mostly influenced by my Greek experience (but Arabs or other Balkan people could go there too and perhaps others as well). (Turks, Russian, Chinese form another category where there are elites try to find a "new way", but this is more complex)
For this audience the MOE offers a new opportunity to discuss with the moderns. Perceived usefulness is high (obviously, if you consider how they are treated by the "modernized" elites) and "finding meaning" could be high. Moreover there are not many other reasonable ways of dealing with the moderns that do not completely pulverize local sources of meaning. But "perceived ease of use" is very bad and social influence processes are also bad (since often the "modernized" elite combined with the soft power of the moderns that the modernized elites consider their own, interepret as their own, usually dominate the public sphere). One should also take into account that some people in semi-modernized countries around the world think that they speak "in the name of tradition" while at the same time they are unreflectively accepting some of the weaker sides of modernization.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου