Categorizing People: Technology Activism

The recent Wikipedia entry on me has me thinking more than usual about what categories people belong to.

Technology Activism

Really - what is a technology activist? This has been something I've been trying to figure out, as it is presently a primary description of me... I joked about it, saying that the 'pay sucks' (and it does), and that there's little room for advancement.

So I started looking around at other people who I believe fit the bill. Andy Carvin is someone I would use the label on. So is Bonnie Bracey. In fact, when I think about it, the entire DigitalDivide.net is really about technology activism, and it's certainly not limited to that one group. There are technology activists everywhere.

And I still can't quite put a finger on what a technology activist is. At the end of the day, it's a very broad and ill defined area which is a bit scarey, because perception might lead people to believe that technology activism is limited to a select group, when in fact I believe it isn't. I believe that it's a part of the natural course of technology.

For my part, I see it as an issue related to quality of life. I know that a lot of other people feel the same, though most I do know of would be categorized as Digital Divide Activists. Which, of course, gets us to what a Digital Divide Activist is and may help define Technology Activism.

What Is Digital Divide Activism?

The Digital Divide is pretty hard to divide, by itself, but generally speaking I think we could say it has to do with Information and Communications Technologies ([t:ICT]), globalization, and a divide in technology usage which affects areas of development. Just like development itself, the definition of the Digital Divide changes every day.

I suppose that means that Digital Divide Activists are doing something. And in the broader context, technology activism isn't limited to Digital Divide Activism.

Back to Technology Activism

Attacking the root, there is technology and there is activism. The root of activism is bringing about change where controversy is involved; without controversy there is no activism and perhaps without activism there is no controversy. Technology activism could be seen as activism related to the use or lack of use of technology, and I suppose that every technology activist has a reason for doing what they do.

It's a pretty poorly defined area, I think, and maybe that's why I don't have a problem with the description. It allows for almost infinite interpretation, yet generally speaking it means trying to bring about change with technology. It could also be seen as trying to bring about change for technology, but that path is a dangerous one and not one I would follow. At the very core of it all, there are people... and people are what this is supposed to be about.

And for the people in the black helicopters, technology activism is non-violent. At least my version of it. :-)