Discourses of Technology Consumption: Ambivalence, Fear

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

Discourses of Technology Consumption: Ambivalence, Fear, and Liminality Margo Buchanan-Oliver , University of Auckland, New Zealand Angela Cruz , University of Auckland, New Zealand

What makes technology frightening? To explore this question, we present the concept of liminality, within which key liminal tensions between bodies/machines, human/nonhuman, past/future, and here/not-here are articulated in interdisciplinary discourses of technology consumption. These represent fundamental tensions, ambivalences, and fears concerning technology consumption – valuable knowledge for crafting deeply resonant communications.

[to cite]: Margo Buchanan-Oliver and Angela Cruz (2011) ,"Discourses of Technology Consumption: Ambivalence, Fear, and Liminality", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 39, eds. Rohini Ahluwalia, Tanya L. Chartrand, and Rebecca K. Ratner, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 287-291.

[url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1009170/volumes/v39/NA-39

[copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Discourses of Technology Consumption: Ambivalence, Fear, and Liminality Margo Buchanan-Oliver, University of Auckland, New Zealand Angela Cruz, University of Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT significant impact on consumers’ lives as they infuse and inform the Why are consumer narratives of technology consumption wider circuits of meaning (McCracken 1986) which shape the way fraught with ambivalence (Mick and Fournier 1998), identity ten- consumers imagine and interact with their technologies. sions (Schau and Gilly 2003), anxiety (Meuter et al. 2003; Mick and While previous studies have examined visual representations of Fournier 1998), and even fear (Clarke 2002; Helman 1988; Virilio posthumanism as represented by the figure of the cyborg (Campbell 1997)? What is it about technology consumption, an arguably ev- et al. 2005; Schroeder and Dobers 2007; Venkatesh et al. 2002), our eryday experience in the context of increasingly ubiquitous digital, approach is more theoretical. We present the concept of liminality as biomedical, information and communication technologies in today’s a recurrent theme within interdisciplinary theoretical discourses of “technology-intensive” markets (John, Weiss, and Dutta 1999, 78), technology consumption and explore its key thematics in terms of that evokes such primal reactions in consumers? In the seemingly ba- four liminal tensions: bodies/machines, human/nonhuman, past/fu- nal act of consuming technology, what exactly comes under threat? ture, and here/not-here. We consider the implications of this concept To explore these questions, we turn to the emerging discourse for extending the paradigm of posthuman consumer research and un- of posthumanism as articulated by Campbell, O’Driscoll, and Saren covering fundamental ambivalences, tensions, and fears concerning (2005), Giesler (2004), Giesler and Venkatesh (2005), Schroeder and technology consumption. We argue that marketers and advertisers Dobers (2007), and Venkatesh, Karababa, and Ger (2002). Signifi- need to reflect on such concerns in their communication of technol- cantly, posthumanist discourses challenge the underlying assump- ogy products in order to pierce the heart of what technology means tions of the predominant information processing paradigm, which to consumers and achieve deep resonance with their target audience. frames the majority of research on technology consumption (e.g. Bettman 1979; Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998) and focus on how Methodology consumers mentally process the functional benefits of technology We carried out a wider project seeking to explicate the range products. Within this paradigm, the following metaphors of consum- and complexity of theoretical discourses which shape narratives and ers and their technologies remain unquestioned: firstly, technology practices of technology consumption. In doing so, we followed an is a positive enabler, secondly, the consumer is a disembodied con- interdisciplinary approach to theory development. We sourced key sciousness, and thirdly, technology is extrinsic to human identity. interdisciplinary conceptual works lensing technology consumption In challenging these prevailing metaphors, the emerging posthu- using keyword searches in ACR proceedings and ABI/Inform, and man paradigm instead acknowledges multiple and complex framing further expanded our list of source texts through reference list and views around technology consumption which are already widespread Google Scholar searches. Applying a discourse analysis methodol- in popular imagination and other academic disciplines. In particular, ogy situated within hermeneutic interpretivism (Crotty 1998), main the concept of liminality provides a potent deconstruction of these concepts and key themes were induced from each source text and metaphors. Liminality refers to a hybrid condition characterised by categorised into broader themes. A “hermeneutical back and forth ambiguity, indeterminacy, contradiction, incoherence, and blurring of between part and whole” (Spiggle 1994, 495) was facilitated through boundaries. Within popular culture, the genre of science fiction sees constant comparison between the literature sources and the emerging classic literary texts (e.g., Gibson’s (1986) ‘Neuromancer’, Asimov’s theoretical framework. This enabled the development of provisional (1967) ‘I, Robot’, Huxley’s (1955) ‘Brave New World’) and popular categories for subsequent exploration, thereby aiding the induction films (e.g.,‘The Terminator’, ‘Blade Runner’, and ‘The Matrix’) rep- of broader, underlying themes from these sources. resenting a liminal vision of human-machine interactions alongside We found the concept of liminality to be a recurrent central their psychological and socio-cultural repercussions. These rich dis- theme in the academic literature examined. We further found two courses are similarly well-entrenched in academic disciplines rang- main discursive strands of body-machine liminality and space-time ing from media and communications studies (Turkle 1984, 1997) liminality, within which key liminal tensions between bodies/ma- to cognitive neuropsychology (Clark 2003), to cultural studies and chines, human/nonhuman, past/future, and here/not-here are articu- critical theory (Balsamo 1996; Shilling 2005; Stone 1996). lated. Drawing on exemplary source texts, we discuss these findings These liminal visions, however, are fraught with pervasive anxi- in the following section. eties and tensions. Virilio (1997, 20), for instance, in his account of the social destruction wrought by information technology and global FINDINGS: Liminality in Technology media, vividly articulates a fear of technology in depicting Consumption

the catastrophic figure of an individual who has lost the capac- The Concept of Liminality ity for immediate intervention … and who abandons himself for Liminality refers to a hybrid condition characterised by am- want of anything better, to the capabilities of captors, sensors biguity, indeterminacy, contradiction, incoherence, and blurring of and other remote control scanners that turn him into a being boundaries. Originally theorised by Turner (1967) as a key charac- controlled by the machine. teristic of the second stage of ritual involving a passage between two states, liminality refers to “a state of transition between two or more In a similar vein, Woodward (1994) writes that “most of us fear boundaries” (Campbell et al. 2005, 346). In anthropological concep- the future prospect of frailty as a cyborg, ““hooked up” … to a ma- tions (Turner 1967), the liminal moment is seen as a temporary state chine.” Even though such texts often draw on spectacular imagery in between, which is eventually resolved through a boundary cross- to underline the implications of technology consumption, they have ing or role transition.

However, liminality can also describe an underlying condition standably absent in aspirational marketing communications which which pervades all aspects of consumers’ reality, being and experi- position technological offerings as infallible. ence, in that all dichotomies, boundaries and ‘states’ of being are par- At the same time as our understanding of technology is informed tial and transitional. A liminal view of consumer experience asserts by our understanding of the human body, the increased adoption of that consumer meanings, identities, and experience are transitional these technologies into the everyday means that the opposite also and dynamic rather than absolute and natural. This perspective as- happens: our understanding of machines come to structure the ways serts the essential unsustainability of traditional dichotomies such as in which we understand ourselves (McLuhan 1967; Turkle 1984, human/machine, mind/body and real/virtual, which are revealed to 1997). The human body is increasingly seen as a machine – an as- be artificial constructions. semblage of multiple parts and systems whose parts can be replaced The theme of liminality plays a key role in Haraway’s (1991) when broken and whose performance can be optimised. seminal ‘Cyborg Manifesto’, in which the figure of the cyborg is used to underline and celebrate the hybridity, contingency, partiality, Human/nonhuman. Additionally, the metaphor of technology and incoherence of embodied subjectivity. A figure which is both hu- as a tool, suggesting that which is external to and distinct from the man and machine, both flesh and metal, both spiritual and material, body, is rendered less compelling than the metaphor of technology and ambiguous in gender, the cyborg for Haraway (1991) embod- as prosthesis, suggesting something which, in addition to extending ies liminality in its juxtaposition of contradictory opposites and in human capability, is incorporated into the self and inevitably comes its potential to break down traditional dichotomies between human to constitute one’s sense of who one is. Zylinska (2002, 3) points and animal, organism and machine, physical and non-physical. In out this “inherently prosthetic nature of human identity” in which this vein, Venkatesh et al. (2002, 446) also write that the emerging humans extend themselves with technologies that either literally or posthuman paradigm “views the intersection of human and machine figuratively become incorporated as part of the self. Similarly, Balsa- as a postmodern possibility in contrast to the received view under mo (1996) theorises that there are ‘degrees of cyborgism’ rather than modernist thinking which considers these two entities as distinctly a reductive human-machine dichotomy. Indeed, Haraway’s (1991, separate.” 150) statement that “we are all chimeras, theorized and fabricated Thus we can already see the radical potential and concurrent hybrids of machine and organism” has become increasingly relevant threat posed by a liminal worldview, in its dissolution of modernist in light of commonplace technologies such as pacemakers and hear- boundaries and its insistence in partiality. Furthermore, as liminal ing aids. states of being do not fit in easily with regular narratives or extant However, we must emphasize that prostheticism is not limited categories, they tend to be conceived as polluted, taboo, and associ- to biomedical technologies, but also applies to everyday prosthetic ated with impurity, alterity, exclusion, danger and Otherness (Clarke devices such as cell phones and laptops. Clark (2003) insists that 2002). Hence, what boundaries are thus contaminated when we prostheticism characterises humans’ everyday interaction with tech- consider technology consumption through a liminal perspective? nology, casting humans as ‘natural-born cyborgs’ in our unique and To answer this, we develop two key discursive strands which fur- inherent capacity to think and feel through our best technologies. He ther explicate and expand this concept: body-machine liminality and argues that the inherent plasticity of the human brain is such that hu- space-time liminality. man subjectivity is necessarily diffused over a fluid and interactive network of biological and non-biological components. In this view, Body-Machine Liminality there is no reason for the ‘biological skin-bag’ to be privileged as the Body-machine liminality refers to a blurring of boundaries be- site of human subjectivity (Clark 2003). Indeed, it is when technolo- tween bodies and machines, making it increasingly difficult to de- gies become transparent in use that we feel they are part of us and lineate differences between human bodies and their nonhuman ma- inseparable from our bodies, such that “technologies can alter, aug- chines. While body-machine liminality is articulated in a wide range ment, and extend our sense of presence and our potential for action” of representational and embodied practices including anthropomor- (Clark 2003, 125). phism in advertisements (Dobers and Schroeder 2001) and the cos- This everyday fusion between the body and technology is dra- metic modification of the human body (Balsamo 1996, Featherstone matically visualised in images of cyborgs, in which non-biological 2000, Schouten 1991), we focus our discussion on two key liminal material literally pierces, merges with, or enters the ‘biological skin- tensions between bodies/machines and human/nonhuman. bag’ (Clark 2003). However, because this image of the cyborg vio- Bodies/machines. Ideas of the body and the machine metaphori- lates extant categories and destabilises what it means to be human, cally inform and shape one another. As metaphorical associations it commonly invokes notions of Otherness, the abject and the un- between bodies and machines are repeatedly re-iterated in linguistic natural, carrying with it mythic resonances of Frankenstein’s mon- discourse, audiovisual representation and embodied practice, resem- ster and evoking anxieties and fears around pollution, contamination, blances between bodies and machines in appearance or behaviour are recombination and miscegenation (Helman 1988). The increasingly underlined (Schroeder and Dobers 2007). pervasive notion of technology-as-prothesis, as represented by the On one hand, the appearance and performance of the machine image of the cyborg, can therefore potentially provoke ambivalent is often understood to be like the appearance and performance of the identifications and fearful reactions in consumers – a sense in which human body. This metaphorical association serves to transfer our un- technology consumption renders us both human and nonhuman. derstanding of the familiar domain of the human body to help us understand potentially abstract domains of technological functioning. Space-Time Liminality Schroeder and Dobers (2007) for instance, cite the example of a print Technology consumption also confounds the experience of advertisement which uses commonplace understandings of the hu- presence. This is explored in the discursive strand of space-time man digestive system to represent data storage in computers. While liminality, which underlines how technology enables various modes there may be a tendency for this trope to be used to communicate of ‘space-shifting’ and ‘time-shifting’. Here, technology consum- functional benefits, the converse notion that machines break down ers experience being both ‘elsewhere’ and ‘elsewhen’, confounding and are as imperfect and vulnerable as the human body is under- modernist conceptions of space and time as fixed and linear. Indeed, Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 39) / 289 a consideration of the spatiotemporal dynamics of technology con- and confound simple dichotomies between the “real” and the “virtu- sumption uncovers its inherent paradoxes, as explored in the liminal al”. In this vein, Druckery (1996, 12) asserts that computer-mediated tensions of past/future and here/not-here. environments “collapse the border between material and immate- Past/future. Technology facilitates ‘time travel’ by allowing rial, the real and the possible” such that dichotomies and boundaries consumers to experience times apart from and in addition to the between the ‘real world’ and ‘virtual world’ are rendered less rel- present, thereby challenging conceptions of time as linear and uni- evant. In short, everyday instances of technology consumption can directional. Technology often facilitates a Janus-faced time perspec- be conceptualised as liminal states, enabling consumers to straddle tive, characterised by a simultaneous gaze to the future and the past. the boundaries between here/not-here across multiple, intersecting, On one hand, technology is strongly associated with and represented and permeable spaces. using futuristic images, with technology being seen to propel us into the future and draw futuristic conceptions of progress into our ev- Implications and Further Research eryday realities (Davis 2004). On the other hand, technology also Our discussion of liminality, while confined to theory, carries preserves memories and history. In particular, through the prolifera- implications for consumers’ lives. In the context of increasingly tion of recording technologies (Manuel 1993) such as video cameras, ubiquitous digital, biomedical, information and communication tech- consumers can readily preserve particular moments in time and to nologies, these interdisciplinary discourses represent wider cultur- access their pasts in an ‘untarnished’ way. ally constituted meanings which impact the consumer experience of Over and above this, technology is implicated in shaping a dy- technology consumption through various circuits of meaning (Mc- namic relationship to time which resists simplistic categorisations of Cracken 1986). As we have observed, posthuman representations past, present, and future. Consider, for instance, how the act of using already pervade advertising texts (Campbell et al. 2005; Schroeder a camera involves a Janus-faced gaze to both past and future: in the and Dobers 2007; Venkatesh et al. 2002) and popular fiction (Asimov act of taking a picture, there is a translation of the present moment 1967; Gibson 1986; Huxley 1955). This underlines their potential to into a documented past for consumption in the future. In this way, the constitute shared cultural meanings which are used by groups past is always present in the future, and vice versa. Here/not-here. Technology also confounds the conception and to make collective sense of their environments and orient their experience of space. As technology enables us to extend our subjec- members’ experiences and lives… [framing] consumers’ ho- tivities beyond our immediate physical surroundings, the location of rizons of conceivable actions, feeling, and thought, making the individual subject with respect to the biological body becomes certain patterns of behaviour and sense-making interpretations increasingly complicated (Stone 1996) and the subjective experience more likely than others of space is transformed. (Arnould and Thompson 2005, 869). Consider, for instance, the experience of telepresence, which Through the concept of liminality as explicated in this paper, simply refers to being in two places at once. Steuer (1992, 76, cited we build on the emerging paradigm of posthuman consumer culture in Hoffman and Novak 1996) defines telepresence as the “mediated (Campbell et al. 2005; Giesler 2004; Giesler and Venkatesh 2005; perception of an environment”, a subjective state in which the con- Schroeder and Dobers 2007; Venkatesh et al. 2002). We shift our sumer perceives both his or her immediate physical environment as attention from the visual representation of posthumanism to expli- well as a computer-mediated environment. Here, telepresence refers cating the key dimensions of liminality as a theoretical concept. To to the experience of being drawn into the space of the screen as ex- demonstrate how a liminal frame provides a different way of under- emplified in an immersive video gaming experience (Darley 2000). standing technology consumption, we now consider how it might With an emphasis on the social, Minsky (1980) defines telepresence extend or re-interpret extant consumer research. as social presence in the absence of physical presence. This con- As we have seen in our discussion of space-time liminality, the ception of telepresence can be divided into real-time telepresence, posthuman paradigm in explaining consumers’ constructions of on- involving the simultaneous co-presence of communicating parties line identities eschews a simple dichotomy between the online self through technologies such as the telephone or instant messaging, and and the physical self (Schau and Gilly 2003). Indeed, this dichotomy virtual telepresence, for instance in personal websites (Schau and is symptomatic of an assumed Cartesian dualism, which separates Gilly 2003) which do not require real-time feedback. the mind from the body and privileges the rational over the embod- Consider also the ways in which technology facilitates the di- ied and holistic aspects of technology consumption (Shilling 2005). vision of once-coherent spaces into separate fragments, enabling Rather, the concept of liminality emphasizes the subjective experi- consumers to set up personal boundaries within shared spaces. As ence of presence across multiple, intersecting, and permeable spaces, an example, the act of putting on a pair of earphones allows one to in which the physical location of the body is not privileged. set up an individual zone within the shared space of a living room In addition, our discussion of liminality further expands Mick or a bus, or enables one to set up a zone of privacy within a public and Fournier’s (1998) paradoxes of technology, in which consumer space (Van Dorst 2005). In addition, technology facilitates the in- ambivalence with respect to technology was explained through eight tersections of and leakages between once-separate spheres, such as polar opposites which characterise technology products. We present the public and private spheres (Buchecker 2005; McDougal 2005). four additional paradoxes as articulated in the key liminal tensions Take for instance, the use of a cell phone in a restaurant. Here, the between bodies/machines, human/nonhuman, past/future, and here/ user enters a private space within a public space, but at the same time not-here. Furthermore, over and above the idea of technology-as- other patrons have a glimpse of this space through the one-sided con- tool, the concept of liminality emphasises the metaphor of technolo- versation. Thus there is a sense of intrusion on both ends – the private gy-as-prosthesis – that which comes to be incorporated into our very intrudes into the public as someone’s conversation interrupts a meal, selves and is constitutive of human identity and subjectivity. In doing while the public intrudes into the private, with other people listening so, this perspective reveals a deeper ambivalence which goes beyond in on one’s conversations. the advantages and disadvantages of technology, and concerns its im- In these ways, subjectivity is seen to be spread out across and plications for how we use technology to constitute and conceive of between spaces in a way that resists modernist conceptions of space ourselves as human. 290 / Discourses of Technology Consumption: Ambivalence, Fear, and Liminality

Similarly, while Kozinets (2008) maps out various oppositional Campbell, Norah, Aidan O’Driscoll, and Mike Saren (2005), identity positions which consumers interpellate into their narratives, “Cyborg Consciousness: A Visual Cultural Approach to the the underlying metaphor of technology as a tool remains unques- Technologised Body,” in European Advances in Consumer tioned. In order to probe the deep-seated reasons for why someone Research, Vol. 7, ed. Karin M. Ekstrom and Helene Brembeck, interpellates a particular ideology of technology into their identity Goteborg, Sweden: Association for Consumer Research, 344-51. narrative, we need to consider the fundamental assumptions which Clark, Andy (2003), Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, underlie these identity narratives. Might Kozinets’ (2008) ‘Green and the Future of Human Intelligence, New York: Oxford Luddite’ position, for instance, be interpreted as a selected coping University Press. strategy in response to the liminal erosion of a clearly delineated hu- Clarke, Julie (2002), “The Human/Not Human in the Work of Orlan man subject? and Stelarc,” in The Cyborg Experiments: The Extensions of Thus, having shown that liminality is a key concept in theoretical the Body in the Media Age, ed. Joanna Zylinska, New York: discourses of technology consumption, and briefly demonstrated its Continuum, 33-55. potential for framing consumer research, further research questions Crotty, Michael (1998), The Foundations of Social Research, St can be considered. From a theoretical perspective, are there other Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. key concepts in interdisciplinary discourses which would similarly Darley, Andrew (2000), Visual Digital Culture: Surface Play and be useful? From an emic standpoint, to what extent do discourses of Spectacle in New Media Genres, London and New York: liminality pervade consumer narratives? If consumers are aware of Routledge. the key paradoxes within popular cultural texts and within the broad- Davis, Erik (2004), “The Emergence of Virtual Commodities,” er theoretical discourses of liminality, exploring the extent to which in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 31, ed. Barbara E. these are articulated in their narratives and appropriated into their Kahn and Mary Frances Luce, Valdosta, GA: Association for identity projects may reveal deeper-running complexities and ten- Consumer Research, 400-02. sions in consumers’ views of technology. We argue that marketers and Dobers, Peter and Jonathan E. Schroeder (2001), “Representing advertisers need to reflect on such complexities and tensions in their IT: Embodying the Electronic Economy,” in 16:e Nordiska communication of technology products in order to pierce the heart of Foretagsekonomiska Amnesknoferensen, Uppsala. what a constantly morphing technology means to consumers, thereby Druckery, Timothy (1996), “Introduction,” in Electronic Culture: assisting them to achieve deep resonance with their target audience. Technology and Visual Representation, ed. Timothy Druckery, New York: Aperture Foundation, 12-25. Conclusion Featherstone, Mike (2000), “Body Modification: An Introduction,” In order to probe the deep-seated reasons for why consumers in Body Modification, ed. Mike Featherstone, London: Sage experience technology in particular ways (Schau and Gilly 2003), Publication, 1-14. feel the way they do about technology (Mick and Fournier 1998), Gibson, William (1986), Neuromancer, London: Grafton. or interpellate particular ideologies of technology into their identity Giesler, Markus (2004), “Consuming Cyborgs: Researching narratives (Kozinets 2008), we need to consider the fundamental Posthuman Consumer Culture,” in Advances in Consumer assumptions which frame these experiences, feelings, and narra- Research, Vol. 31, ed. Barbara E. Kahn and Mary Frances Luce, tives. The concept of liminality, and the posthuman paradigm more Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 400-02. broadly, provides a way to articulate how fundamental assumptions Giesler, Markus and Alladi Venkatesh (2005), “Reframing the are destabilised and negotiated in consumer narratives of technol- Embodied Consumer as Cyborg: A Posthumanist Epistemology ogy consumption. Furthermore, our discussion of key liminal ten- of Consumption,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 32, sions enables us as theorists to identify exactly what comes under ed. Geeta Menon and Akshay R. Rao, Duluth, MN: Association threat, and why such deep-seated consumer anxieties and fears are for Consumer Research, 661-69. evoked, in seemingly banal narratives of technology consumption – Haraway, Donna J. (1991), “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, the hitherto unquestioned meanings of being human, having a body, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth and inhabiting a particular space and time. By being aware of these Century,” in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of fundamental anxieties and fears, marketers and advertisers will be Nature, New York: Routledge. better able to communicate technology products in ways that deeply Helman, Cecil (1988), “Dr Frankenstein and the Industrial Body: resonate with their target audiences. Reflections on ‘Spare Part’ Surgery,” Anthropology Today, 4 (3), 14-16. References Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), “Marketing in Arnould, Eric J. and Craig J. Thompson (2005), “Consumer Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research,” Journal of Foundations,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68. Consumer Research, 31 (March), 868-82. Huxley, Aldous (1955), Brave New World: A Novel, Harmondsworth: Asimov, Isaac (1967), I, Robot, London: Dennis Dobson. Penguin. Balsamo, Anne Marie (1996), Technologies of the Gendered Body: John, George, Allen M. Weiss, and Shantanu Dutta (1999), Reading Cyborg Women, Durham: Duke University Press. “Marketing in Technology-Intensive Markets: Toward a Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), 78-91. Consumer Choice, MA: Addison-Wesley. Kozinets, Robert V. (2008), “Technology/Ideology: How Ideological Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce, and John W. Payne (1998), Fields Influence Consumers’ Technology Narratives,” Journal of “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (April), 865-81. Consumer Research, 25 (December), 187-217. Manuel, Peter Lamarche (1993), Cassette Culture: Popular Music Buchecker, Matthias (2005), “Public Place as a Resource of Social and Technology in North India, Chicago: University of Chicago Interaction,” in Spatiality, Spaces and Technology, ed. P. Turner Press. and E. Davenport, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 79-96. Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 39) / 291

McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Spiggle, Susan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Data in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 491-503. 13 (June), 71-82. Stone, Allecquere Rosanne (1996), The War of Desire and McDougal, Lorna (2005), “The Intersection of Real and Virtual Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age, Cambridge: Workspace,” in Spatiality, Spaces and Technology, ed. P. Turner MIT Press. and E. Davenport, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 67-78. Turkle, Sherry (1984), The Second Self: Computers and the Human McLuhan, Marshall (1967), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Spirit, New York: Simon and Schuster. Man, London: Sphere Books. Turkle, Sherry (1997), Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Meuter, Matthew L., Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L. Ostrom, and Stephen Internet, New York: Simon & Schuster. W. Brown (2005), “Choosing among Alternative Service Turner, Victor (1967), The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Delivery Modes: An Investigation of Customer Trial of Self- Ritual, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Service Technologies,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (April), 61-83. Van Dorst, Machiel (2005), “Privacy Zoning: The Different Layers Mick, David Glen and Susan Fournier (1998), “Paradoxes of of Public Space,” in Spatiality, Spaces and Technology, ed. P. Technology: Consumer Cognizance, Emotions, and Coping Turner and E. Davenport, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 97-116. Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (September), Venkatesh, Alladi, Eminegul Karababa, and Guliz Ger (2002), “The 123-43. Emergence of the Posthuman Consumer and the Fusion of Minsky, Marvin (1980), “Telepresence,” Omni (June), 45-51. the Virtual and the Real: A Critical Analysis of Sony’s Ad for Schau, Hope Jensen and Mary C. Gilly (2003), “We Are What We Memory Stick,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, Post? Self-Presentation in Personal Web Space,” Journal of ed. Susan M. Broniarczyk and Kent Nakamoto, Valdosta, GA: Consumer Research, 30 (3), 385-404. Association for Consumer Research, 446-52. Schouten, John W. (1991), “Selves in Transition: Symbolic Virilio, Paul (1997), Open Sky, London and New York: Verso. Consumption in Personal Rites of Passage and Identity Woodward, Kathleen (1994), “From Virtual Cyborgs to Biological Reconstruction,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), Time Bombs: Technocriticism and the Material Body,” in 412-25. Culture on the Brink: Ideologies of Technology, ed. Gretchen Schroeder, Jonathan E. and Peter Dobers (2007), “Imagining Identity: Bender and Timothy Druckery, Seattle: Bay Press, 47-64. Technology and the Body in Marketing Communications,” in Zylinska, Joanna (2002), “Extending McLuhan into the New Media Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34, ed. Gavan Fitzsimons Age: An Introduction,” in The Cyborg Experiments: The and Vicki Morwitz, Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Extensions of the Body in the Media Age, ed. Joanna Zylinska, Research, 155-57. New York: Continuum, 1-12. Shilling, Chris (2005), The Body in Culture, Technology and Society, London: Sage.