Marx on Cell Phones?

First, an explanation why I’m not sharing details about my research itself: I’ve really only just begun, and it's hard to see any forest beyond the trees right now. But more than that, the research I’ve done so far has been pretty intense for me- both because of its content and because of the inevitable insecurities that accompany a first trip into “the field.” I’m not sure I really want to broadcast any of that at this point- though for those who are interested to receive a few small details privately, email me. Suffice it to say that the richness of my experience thus far proves difficult to articulate, even in my own reflective writing.

So, I’ll divert back to sharing the interesting tidbits of consumer culture here. First, absolutely everyone has a cell phone here. EVERYONE. Many people without much money buy very (by US standards) inexpensive phones (a baseline model can cost as little as $20.) The two main cell brands have pay-as-you-go plans, where if you have any money on your phone at all, incoming calls are free and sms messages (texts) cost very little if anything. So, not only are cell phones ubiquitous, but the culture around them is extremely permissive. First of all, it is typical for someone to either pick up their cell or answer an sms in the middle of dinner, an interview, a serious conversation, walking down the street- anytime. And I’ve had more than one person display annoyance when I wasn’t immediately available for consultation. (I am actually deeply ambivalent about cell phones and often ignore mine if I’m not anticipating a call.)

Shortly before coming here, I was reading an interesting series of online postings by friends who, for political reasons, have refused to purchase cell phones. It’s a pretty compelling Marxist argument- that the privatization of communication technology basically creates a situation where it becomes compulsory to own a cell phone. (For example, if all your friends ditch their land lines and you’re traveling and staying with them, nobody can reach you; if cities stop tending to public phones, that creates security risks for folks without their own phones.) My friend Dean has argued persuasively about how poor people really shoulder the burden of this new “need.” (For an old-ish version of his ideas about cellies, check this out.)

So, I’m trying to work through how/if South Africa fits into this model. I feel like one could argue it either way: We might say that the Marxist analysis maps neatly onto Africa- or anywhere for that matter. I suppose another way to look at it, however, is that now, in places with little or no electrical infrastructure, people can now communicate. And whatever deal the phone companies cut with Motorola produced inexpensive and widely available technology (expense, of course, always being relative to what one has). Some take this idea to the extreme and argue that cell phone technology actually itself helps people by creating new economic opportunities for people who might not otherwise have them. (See, for example, this article. I'm not sure I'm buying that, though.) What do you all think???

In the meantime, it hasn’t escaped me that the place where I’m staying has two land lines- one in the “landlord’s” house and one in the “cottage” I’m renting- and neither works well. (They both ring intermittently throughout the day and night, if they’re plugged in.) Apparently, the phone company needs to come replace much of the neighborhood wiring- but shockingly, they’re not doing it. Connection?