research on hybrid practices and culture
Created March 18, 2007, at 9:39 pm by idest
Hi all,
I'm a student doing some interpretive research about hybrid cars and hybrid car users. I'm trying to understand hybrid car practices as a communicative system. I will be posting some passages from my work at this site. Could you please take a look at them, and give me your feedback on how viable my interpretations are. I would appreciate it very much.
Regards,
Id'est
advertisement
Free Email Newsletter Sign-up
All the latest news in a free and engaging bundle. Totally free!
Differences that Make the Difference
The systeming model suggests that the system emerges in the process of difference creation. From this perspective, the authors’ interpretations indicate that activated distinctions (differences) are not accidental; rather they are directed at maintaining the difference. The difference is a general qualitative form which is exhibited in the uniqueness that is attained through activating particular distinctions rather than other distinctions.
System Formation
In contrast to other interpretive traditions, the systeming analysis avoids immersing into all the details reflected in the discursive data. Furthermore, it does not judge the extent of validity behind statements. The researcher directs attention at how a person who is telling a story is operating within the system, while the system is not found in the story, but in the manner of how story is constructed. Foremost, allow considering the following extract from a conversation in a forum dedicated to hybrid cars:
Confessions from a large truck driver
I've to come clean with you gals and guys... for the last 5 years I've been driving a 11-seater Ford E350. A very large van with a very large engine. There you got it........... I feel a weight off my shoulders. Now that I've come out of the closet, let me elaborate briefly: This is a company-sponsored carpooling van, which I drive. So when all the occupants are tallied, we still get very respectable MPGPP (Miles per Gallon per Person). So why did I need to make this confession? because I must admit that I was guilty of some of the aggresive behavior, that some forum members complain about large SUV [sport-utility vehicle] and truck drivers. When I got my HCH (Honda Civic Hybrid), I became EDUCATED and RESPECTFUL. It is amazing how much one's driving improves when one puts attention to the way one drives. The HCH has been a great educational tool on both driving for mileage and driving for respect. Forum members already know the reasons and tricks for driving for mileage. But what about driving respectfully? Why it is that large SUV and truck drivers -not everyone, but certainly on average- tend to drive more aggressive? My theory: because large trucks and SUVs are basically designed to isolate you as much as possible from the road and its surroundings. With ultra-powerful engines, silky smooth automatic transmissions, comfy suspension, large tires, soundproofing, leather interiors, multi-zone climate control, 10 speaker audio systems, etc., one does not drive a car as much as one only rides it. And with the high seating position, one truly is on top of the world. Feedback is key to modify anyone's behavior. And when you become deprived from it...well, one misbehaves. That is my two yen on the subject (posted by fg1 (usernames are altered), on 16/02/2006, at [url]www.greenhybrid.com)[/url].
This passage is the example of how the observation of a happening may change depending on a system activated. In the passage, the story teller can be seen unifying all truck and SUV drivers, and objectifying their behaviour as being different to that of hybrid drivers. The points of difference activated here are as follows:
a) the hybrid car drivers are educated rather than ignorant because of their sensitivity to social (peer) feedbacks (the distinction activated here is educated/ignorant);
b) the hybrid car drivers drive more respectfully rather than aggressively in comparison to SUV/truck drivers (respectful/aggressive);
c) the hybrid car drivers emphasise fuel efficiency rather than other motives (efficient driving/inefficient driving).
These distinctions resonate with other observers who might tell identical stories based on similar distinctions. The similarity of difference-making actions creates the difference, and it represents the difference of SCC from other systems, which communicate in terms of contrasting differences. Consider the following comments by other forum participants on the story given above:
Re1: Confessions from a large truck driver
fg1, you should posted done a "I have sinned against you" Jimmy Swaggart-style comment. (posted by Sg1, on 16/02/2006, at greenhybrid.com)
Re2: Confessions from a large truck driver
fg1, I'm not going to toss stones at you from cyberspace. I'm a big believer of not holding the past against anyone that goes about things differently. I have a few confessions myself. The first three years of my Insight I'd go 65-70mph - the pack speed. About 3-4 times a week somene (sic) would blast by me and I'd usually take up the challenge and let them know I was not left behind in the dust. Yes, that probably shortened the life of my recently changed IMA battery pack - no, I'm not going to race again. Also, I was often in a middle lane on the freeway. Nothing wrong or annoying keeping up in the middle lane, but being on the rightmost lane means less aggressive drivers to get me hissed off. Even with that, occasionally a few drivers would pass on the right shoulder. A Dodge Ram went so far as pass me in the middle of a single-lane exit ramp. With gas over $2 a gallon and being on the road less during rush hour, there is less of this to put up with. Dallas has more than it's share of Type-As and trucks. Aggressive road behavior is so prevalent it's very hard not to conclude the two go together. Granted, there are flying compacts and motorcycles that get under my skin from time to time. I've commented about the "High and Mighty" reclined posture and connected it with both the SUV/Truck commercials and the cultivation of proud and aggressive types in the Dallas business community. Lots of people around here have "trophy" homes and vehicles - common knowledge around here. I'm simply not into getting things way bigger than my needs to impress others or stroke my ego. I have problems understands those that feel this is a need and feign a utilitarian "need" for say - a Hummer. I hope everyone has noted this post has been been (sic) civil and not in an "attack mode". I'm explaining where I'm coming from. (posted by Df1, on 16/02/2006, at [url]www.greenhybrid.com)[/url].
The first reply is an “out of the system” comment, which refuses to continue according to the suggested patterns of distinctions. This observation is an outsider. The outsider is an observation that observes the system as a whole (story + story teller) rather than entering the system through supporting a particular distinction-making style. The passage seems to be put in a style that specifically mocks SCC. However, implicit is the observation which negates the system as a whole. This may be an indication on the part of the poster that the proposed system would not be continued. In contrast, the second reply accepts the distinctions (aggressive/respectful driving), and thus re-constructs the system. In the process, the second response makes a viable point: sometimes a vehicle category driven does not matter, aggressiveness could be exhibited by any driver regardless of a category of a car he/she drives. However, the systeming perspective allows posing another question: whose observation is this point? Is it not told by a hybrid car devotee who is, at the moment, one of the participants in the system? Various systems might have their own perspectives on this issue, which are temporarily not accessible to the current observer (second reply). Perhaps, the observer emphasises the issue of aggressiveness to prove once more that hybrid car devotees are not ignorant (educated/ignorant distinction) of such problems.
What happens if the starting distinction is an outsider? One may always disagree with the proposed distinction, and consider the situation in the light of another, but a system-specific distinction. Thus, SCC emerges once again. It is formed when the distinctions considered irrelevant are refused, and instead, relevant systemic distinctions are suggested. This process is evident in many of the passages:
The way I look at it, good old economics will eventually dictate who buys and drives emerging high fuel-efficiency technologies and push the question of, "how do I look driving this car?" or the statement, "That's not a man's car!" further into the back seat. Far too many people live right on the edge of their financial capabilities and exist in a situation where one burp could send them into the abyss. Holding on to a low efficiency vehicle because of its looks, or because of the way they PERCEIVE they look in the driver's seat may be the very thing that brings down the house of cards. My question: Does image eclipse the potential loss of material gains accumulated through hard work over many years? At what point will a man (or woman) say, "You know, I really love my truck (or SUV) but I can't go on paying $75 or $100 every time I fill up. This is insane and it's getting to the point where I can't pay my other bills. I need to get a car with better fuel mileage - one of those hybrids that gets 50 miles per gallon, maybe. I don't like how they look, with that funky rear end, and I wouldn't have been caught dead driving one a year ago, but hey, I have to get more efficient if I'm going to survive." To me, the answer is plain and simple. The survivors are going to have to get more efficient - much more efficient - if they want to prosper in the future. That's going to be the issue, not whether a man or a woman looks better in this car or that (posted by be1, on 13/06/2006, at priuschat.com)
The passage above is in reply to a weblog participant who is concerned about whether a certain brand of hybrid cars is seen to be women’s car on the part of a majority of consumers. Accordingly, the distinction operated regarding the brand at first is whether a hybrid car brand is solely feminine or unisex. The sleek design of certain hybrid car brands might lead people to think that they are designed exclusively for females. The main argument in the passage is that this distinction is not so much important as the distinction fuel efficient versus inefficient. Here the initial distinction is played down, while the system-unique distinction is suggested as original.
Positive Side
The hybrid car driving experience becomes meaningful in reference to conventional vehicle-driving experiences. Although both perspectives on driving experiences solely pertain to SCC, the former may be considered with a positive tilt, whereas the latter may be deemed negative. According to a mechanical model of systems, the former is a systemic process, whereas the latter is an environmental factor. In contrast, this analysis indicates that these perspectives are both the operation of the same system, while the environment remains as something else. For example, this “something else” could be the possibilities of creating other types of distinctions (divisions, classifications). As an example to this process, the activation of such binary values as good/bad or truth/false can be considered. A systemic good is not known unless a bad can be known, or truth cannot be attained unless false can be differentiated. This is reflected in the following passage:
'Good' and 'bad' are improper labels for substances, because it depends hugely on use. Take vaccines- you inject someone with a virus, often a very dangerous virus. To this day, that puts people off of vaccines- it's a reaction based on fear. Someone needs to explain: the injection is a weakened form of the virus, sometimes a 'dead' strain, and their bodies react by building up the right immunities so that they have protection if they get exposed to a live strain, and that's the way a lot of medicine works. To fit this in with your analogy, I suppose it might be true that if you don't give them enough of the vaccine, their immune systems don't build up their defenses [sic] and they think they're protected but they aren't, etc. I'm not sure why this is 'bad news,' though, since it doesn't conflict with anything I said. The radiation beach idea is funny, but I wasn't trying to make the point that 'these dumb people didn't realize how dangerous radiation is.' Almost the opposite, actually; I believe that our understanding of which things are 'good' and which are 'bad' is in a near-constant state of flux. Even things which are 'bad' in some contexts are good in others. For instance, prolonged exposure to the sun can cause skin cancer, but (and I'm no biologist,) I think I remember that being exposed to the sun creates Vitamin D in your skin, so there are beneficial things about it, too. I would still advise sunscreen, however! (posted by lb1, on 24/02/2006, at [url]www.greenhybrid.com)[/url].
This statement focuses on radiation which is thought to be emitted by the electric systems of hybrid cars. This discourse finds its continuation in search for appropriate definitions for the notion of electric radiation (an unsustainable attribute), and thereby, non-radiation. However, no fundamental grounding can be detected that would become a guiding reference to define the nature of radiation. Everything depends on how the concept of radiation vis-à-vis non-radiation is defined in the argument, while a subsequent argumentation may always challenge the initial assumptions of the previous argument. Hence the discourse expands.
It's interesting to see the many different ways people are answering this question. (although everyone is reaching the same conclusion- it's not dangerous! Don't worry about it!) We touch on EMF, ionizing radiation, the whole concept of the wavelength spectrum... it's because terms like 'electro radiation,' are too general. We're all answering a slightly different question, because the original poster could have been talking about a few different things. Laymen think that 'radiation' means only one particular thing, (which isn't true) and often they're just reflexively afraid of it, like people who refuse to use microwaves. It reminds me of an exhibit I saw at a museum on atomic energy in Los Alamos, where they developed the bomb. Apparently, people way back when used to think that being exposed to radiation was good for them, and there were all these cheesy ads for 'radiation beaches' and 'radiation lotions' and so on that were marketed as health products and vacation destinations. People are funny, you know? And it just goes to show that public health manias and the fears of the moment are fads, just as much as Beanie Babies and bellbottoms, or the low-carb craze. Hopefully the hysteria will calm down over time, as it has on so many things before (posted by lb1, on 23/02/2006, at greenhybrid.com)
The “radiation” topic may continue depending on how binary values (good/bad; true/false) are enacted. This indicates to the high extent of contingency in the system’s formation. The object - radiation - might be equally taken as either negative or positive. The passage above recounts understanding of how the system approaches radiation negatively in the present, while some time ago this factor may have been taken as a positive phenomenon. While radiation might become perceived as an either sustainable or unsustainable factor of a product, these both initial conditions could equally be used to expand the system. In contrast to positivist assumptions, there seems to be no necessary natural points of departure. The system is not motivated to consider the issue rationally and tackle the problem via foundational criteria; rather it uses any distinction to assert its difference from other systems. For systemic operations, the difference means existence, while existence is maintained by the reproduction of identical communications.
psycobable
Do you ever watch South Park on Comedy Central? There was a show last year about Hybrid owners and the "Smug Front" owning a hybrid caused. Hilarious. You should include that in your research. . .
Hello Idest.
I am currently researching articles and further information for my master thesis topic about changes in brand perceptions due to the promotion and production of "green cars", which is mainly focused on hybrid cars.
I am actually just at the start for which reason I am trying to gather as much information as possible. Do you have any literature suggestions or references that might be applicable to what I am writing about?
Thanks for the help.
Lulasch
(For everyone else-I could not help myself-Sorry)
Idest- "I'm trying to understand hybrid car practices as a communicative system." With statements like that, do not expect much help.
Hybrid car users buy and use hybrid cars to get from point A to point B using as little gas as possible, or generate as little pollution as possible, or they like using new technology, or some other reason.
This now completes your research.
very well said i think i have nothing to say about hybrid cars anymore and i also wanna thank you for that article because i understand some things are not quite clear to me.
_______________
New [&#@%!].com blog
Post a new comment