The meaning of freedom and choice

To illustrate the point above and support ensuing arguments I have chosen a magazine ad from Samsung Digitall for closer scrutiny (figure 3.1). It embodies many of the dominant themes and messages of Mobilisation and provides a good example of the persuasive use of form, imagery and associations. The most striking feature of this ad is the beautiful woman holding two foldable mobile phones. The warm colours of the background match the hue of her skin, nicely complemented by the colourful displays of the phones. The balanced composition is lifted by a trio of smooth lines, and along with the vitality of her expression and body language, the image makes for an aesthetically pleasing and sensually seductive experience. “Communication play” stands like a title, and the text below states that “Your communications are easier and more exciting than ever”. Yet she’s apparently not

communicating in the ordinary sense of the word, but dancing in a blissful state of joy, clapping the phones as castanets, or music instruments.

4 In the expanded sense, including imagery, layout etc.

Figure 3.1: Communication play.

Communication is indicated by the phones themselves, while the sense of excitement and joy is invoked by alluding to music and dance. The latter serve as metonyms to bring

communication and excitement together in a union, erasing apparent contrasts:

Communication devices vs. music instruments; serious business attire vs. unconstrained joy.

The totality of the ad suggests that it is the mobile phones that enable her to transcend these boundaries, simultaneously they are the source of her happiness: “Samsung

Telecommunications lets you do unimaginable things with your mobile phone”. Thanks to the technology, the impossible becomes possible.

This use of metaphors and metonymic language form the cornerstones of mobile telephone representation techniques. By alluding to ideals of beauty, success, excitement, leisure and joy, mobile telephone advertisements play on our desires, promising not just a handy appliance, but access to a qualitatively better life where you are free to choose the mobile phone that suits you, personalise your mobile style, find the information you desire, talk to whomever you want and most importantly, whenever you want, wherever you want.

This is possibly the mantra of Mobilisation, putting a clear emphasis on the individual freedom made possible by mobile telephone technology. The world is often portrayed as one of constraints and boundaries, and the mobile phone is presented as the solution to escape them. The message repeated over and over is that the mobile phone provides us with infinite choice and freedom.

These serve as ideographs, in that they infuse our attitudes towards the mobile phone with generally recognizable ideals in a taken-for-granted manner, without making these connections explicit (deWilde 2000). However, their use may be questioned when put properly into context. Freedom and choice implies free will and available alternatives of action, their opposites are coercion and limitation. Also, the rhetoric implies the technology itself as value-neutral (Wyatt 1998), since choice is presented as unconstrained by any factor beyond preference. By equating freedom with mobile communication, Mobilisation rhetoric implies that it is only achievable once you have acquired the proper technology; but what about the freedom not to adapt mobile technology? Following the logic of Mobilisation, this

choice disables freedom in the first place. Similarly, the emphasis on the latest technology disqualifies not upgrading your phone as an option. Paradoxically, freedom and choice become contingent on acquiring the latest mobile technology, thus limiting free will and alternative actions to apply within the constraints of the technology itself. Mobilisation rhetoric thereby employs freedom and choice to exclude a whole range of attitudes that are inconsistent with mobile product turnover. Being connected becomes the only alternative.

Furthermore, Mobilisation echoes a dominant trend of our modern society, promoting individual values at the expense of the larger community. As mentioned, the expanded view of communication does not always presuppose a human counterpart. The woman featured in figure 3.1 is alone, seemingly immersed in her own world. The only co-present entities are her mobile phones. This reflects a recurring theme of the relation between individual and mobile phone as the basis of communication. With the integration of games, MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service), MP3⁵ and Internet technology, mobile phone communication is increasingly shown as interaction with the device itself: Possible

conversation partners are often under-communicated or left out entirely. As such, the mobile is presented as a portal of infinite access; you communicate first and foremost with your phone, and it is always at the ready. Thus, external constraints and the intervention of others are seemingly assumed away, downplaying the importance of context and co-present others.

Communication is thereby employed as an ideograph, in the sense that it promotes certain aspects at the expense of others. Myerson (2001) argues that Mobilisation moulds the notion of communication into an impersonal exchange of information, where the aspects of meaning and understanding between two human parties are gradually lost. This view may be overly pessimistic, but it illustrates a tendency of broadening communication to include more actions while decreasing its qualitative criteria. Mobile phones are claimed to bring people closer,

5 MPEG audio layer 3, The most common format for digital sound files.

connecting them across the world. Yet at the same time they produce communication barriers towards co-present people by drawing the caller’s attention away (Ling 2001; Persson 2001, Fortunati 1997). This implies a dual nature of mobile communication that also counters the above mentioned notion of technological neutrality, which will be discussed further in chapter 4, along with the mentioned paradox of freedom and choice.