By Micah S\u00e9bastien Zhang<\/p>\n
The book Materialist Media Theory: An Introduction<\/em> written by Grant Bollmer in 2019 provided some comprehensive yet innovative perspectives on media studies based on contemporary media atmosphere. In this blog post, we are going to see how Bollmer’s ideas in the book are being reflected and presented in one research essay on the effect and materiality of smartphones.<\/p>\n The research essay by Hananel Rosenberg and Menahem Blondheim primarily focuses on an experiment on the uses of smartphone among teenagers, yet it also provides valuable insights into how we can define the materiality of smartphones, and how are those insights come in contrast of some past, predisposed beliefs.<\/p>\n The researchers firstly gave an overview of the materiality of smartphone. Drawing from the ideas of the Toronto School thinkers Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan \u2014 in which they think "media technologies impact the nature of social organization…and the cognitive implications…" \u2014 the researchers claim that the functional concept of smartphone has gone "beyond the prosthetic" into a form that serves as a communication organ, which belongs to a figuratively-morphed body as a communication node. The node, in this case smartphone, has come with three natural aspects of being personal<\/em>, portable<\/em>, and prosthetic<\/em> (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.240). It is a key element to understand the smartphone’s contemporary and figurative significance, yet the researchers also acknowledged that it is hard to understand this idea based off the Toronto School’s perspective considering the importance of smartphones in people’s daily lives.<\/p>\n Here, we can see some similar ideas reflected in Bollmer’s book in Chapter 5, in which Bollmer talked about the figurative definition and relationships of objects. Taking from the idea of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, he narrated that using an existing technological object withdraws its materialistic presence from our experiences, forming a "ready-at-hand" concept (Bollmer, p.143). Using an object does not equates to simply having the object as a prosthetic, but morphing it into an unifying experience; this, in my opinion, is reflecting to the point claimed by the essay’s researchers.<\/p>\n Altogether, it seems that we’re getting an intertwined, general idea of the extensive, prosthetic nature of an object, as it was similarly mentioned or claimed by authors of the two scholarly texts with the support from famous thinkers’ ideas. However, the results shown by the research experiment seem to contemplate the concept’s given figurative definition as from a "prosthetic" point of view.<\/strong> To understand this claim better, let’s take a closer look into the research experiment (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.243-245) and its conclusion on results analysis (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.251-252).<\/p>\n The researchers aimed to study the significance of smartphone in daily lives through voluntary deprivation, and they have put their focuses on teenagers. The researchers have chosen 80 teengaers aged 13-18 in Israel as participants; those teenagers all differ in terms of their average amount of smartphone uses and respective living conditions (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.243). The experiment rolled out in several steps: the enrolled participants were first being asked about their cellphone uses, then their parents were being asked to sign a declaration to make sure that they’re keeping their children’s phones away from sight for the entire experimentation period, which is one week. The experiment will play out in several separate experimentation period throughout a year; researchers also asked participants to give daily diaries and do face-to-face interviews to collect information of participants’ sentiments and feelings (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.244).<\/p>\n Some notable parameters of this experiment were also presented. All participants, whether followed the no-phone rules and successfully completed the experiment or not, will be granted NIS 2501<\/a><\/sup> as a reward after each one-week period; researchers said that it’s not to discourage participants from using phones during an emergency (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.244, 245). Plus, participants were not barred from other electronic devices, including TVs, music and video players, tablets, and computers (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.243) as the collection of information is only bound to the variable of absence of phones in daily lives.<\/p>\n The results were a bit unexpected. 79 out of 80 participants have passed the one-week periods without the phone at all, contrasting against the predisposition held by participants that it would be challenging to endure a week without smartphones. Notably, this finding further challenges a prevalent discourse that describes the relationship between smartphones and teenagers as "addictions" (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.245). Participants did also express some senses of uncomfort or peculiar feelings from the deprivation based on the three aforementioned natural aspects \u2014 prosthetic<\/em>, portable<\/em>, and personal<\/em> (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.246-248). Nevertheless, some participants also expressed positive feelings when connecting to the physical surroundings and connections away from screens, with some feelings formalized into gratifications for this experiment (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.250-251). The researchers have specifically mentioned this part in the essay’s conclusion, claiming that "alternative venues of attention and activities were embraced, and they yielded gratifications that compensated, to a surprising extent, for missing the smartphone" (Rosenberg and Blondheim, p.252).<\/p>\n On the individual level of analysis, and in trying to penetrate media-users\u2019 cognitive state (Levinson 1999; McLuhan 1967), the enhancement of one\u2019s sensory scope by a personal, portable tool with prosthetic-like attributes, certainly \u201cextends\u201d the individual. Yet increasing one\u2019s exposure to the outside world, with all its gratifications, may carry burdens and discontents that can be relieved by a respite \u2014 even for a relatively short time\u2014from the constant extension of individuals, and a return to a less-technologically-expanded experiential-intake capacity.<\/em><\/p>\n \u2014\u2014 Rosenberg & Blondheim (p.252)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Drawing from those general ideas and processes \u2014 and specifically from the points made by the researchers at their conspectus \u2014 the holistic yield provides another perspective on examining the figurative materiality of smartphone. Rather than viewing it simply as a prosthesis, it presents itself more as an intermittent clone<\/em> that independently coexists with the "host" \u2014 the concept of self or ego \u2014 considering its socio-cultural capabilities and feasibility of detachment.<\/strong> As the experiment participants expressed that the loss of phones was getting replenished by their physical surroundings and attributes, it is important to reflect on the idea of simply defining smartphones \u2014 or even similar electronic devices \u2014 as a figurative prothesis. The concept of "prosthetic objects" was granted its characteristics by the uniqueness of its nature; that is, the objects \u2014 even if they can work materialistically as prosthetic extensions \u2014 only present themselves as irreplacable. Smartphones, on the other hand, come as an unique form of socio-cultural interactions, yet they’re still categorized as physical attributes under the grand scheme of socio-cultural interactions; a phone could work as an crucial tool, yet it doesn’t provide the uniqueness as a figurative prosthesis, which is reflected upon participants’ positive sentiments during the experiment. This feasibility of detachment, we can say, essentially disqualifies the point to view smartphones solely as a figurative prosthesis extended from the body and mind.<\/p>\n The chosen term "intermittent clone" comes in play if we’re reflecting on smartphone’s socio-cultural significance in an up-to-date manner. Smartphones do effectively provide a materialistic and physical entrance to a de-materialized space for humanistic developments, in which physical communications haven evolved into digital forms as compressions from three-dimesional (or even higher) experiences. Such tools serve as a pathway to create a clone (similar to a biological understanding) or clones that are subjugated under different digital socio-cultural constraints and exist independently, with the purpose of recreating real, physical connections. Note that the now-developed landscape of digital social media becomes an alternative to traditional social media, it is more important to re-adjust the scope of study of materiality into a more holistic view.<\/p>\n The cover image is distributed under Public Domain and can be found here<\/a><\/p>\n Bollmer, Grant. Materialist Media Theory: An Introduction<\/em>. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2019.<\/p>\n Rosenberg, Hananel, and Menahem Blondheim. \u201cWhat (Missing) the Smartphone Means: Implications of the Medium\u2019s Portable, Personal, and Prosthetic Aspects in the Deprivation Experience of Teenagers.\u201d The Information Society<\/em>, vol. 41, no. 4, Apr. 2025, pp. 239\u201355. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01972243.2025.2490487<\/a>.<\/p>\n NIS stands for New Israel Shekel (ISO 4217 Code: ILS), which is the legal currency used by Israel. Dated to the evening of 2025 November 14, ILS 250 approximately equal to CAD 108.62. ↩<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Micah S\u00e9bastien Zhang The book Materialist Media Theory: An Introduction written by Grant Bollmer in 2019 provided some comprehensive yet innovative perspectives on media studies based on contemporary media atmosphere. In this blog post, we are going to see how Bollmer’s ideas in the book are being reflected and presented in one research essay … Continue reading What Does Smartphone Actually Mean To Us? \u2014 Critical Texts Comparison With Bollmer<\/span> A Broad Introduction<\/h2>\n
The Experiement<\/h2>\n
\n
"An Intermittent Clone" \u2014 A Reflection & Short Conclusion<\/h2>\n
Copyright Disclaimer<\/h2>\n
Works Consulted<\/h2>\n
Footnote(s)<\/h2>\n
\n
![here<\/a><\/p>\nWorks Consulted<\/h2>\nBollmer, Grant. Materialist Media Theory: An Introduction<\/em>. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2019.<\/p>\nRosenberg, Hananel, and Menahem Blondheim. \u201cWhat (Missing) the Smartphone Means: Implications of the Medium\u2019s Portable, Personal, and Prosthetic Aspects in the Deprivation Experience of Teenagers.\u201d The Information Society<\/em>, vol. 41, no. 4, Apr. 2025, pp. 239\u201355. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/01972243.2025.2490487<\/a>.<\/p>\nFootnote(s)<\/h2>\n\n\n\nNIS stands for New Israel Shekel (ISO 4217 Code: ILS), which is the legal currency used by Israel. Dated to the evening of 2025 November 14, ILS 250 approximately equal to CAD 108.62. ↩<\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By Micah S\u00e9bastien Zhang The book Materialist Media Theory: An Introduction written by Grant Bollmer in 2019 provided some comprehensive yet innovative perspectives on media studies based on contemporary media atmosphere. In this blog post, we are going to see how Bollmer’s ideas in the book are being reflected and presented in one research essay … Continue reading What Does Smartphone Actually Mean To Us? \u2014 Critical Texts Comparison With Bollmer<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100081,"featured_media":848,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[132,135,152,34,8],"class_list":["post-846","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-critical-comparison","tag-critical-comparison","tag-critical-comparison-of-texts","tag-grant-bollmer","tag-materiality","tag-media-theory"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100081"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=846"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":847,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846\/revisions\/847"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=846"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=846"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubc.ca\/mdia300\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=846"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/w\/index.php?title=File:Smartphone_use_at_railway_station.jpg&oldid=937915363\"){kind=link}