The authors’ sought to shed a light on technology-induced societal changes taking place all over the world, focusing their attention on the Inuit hunters of Igloolik, Nunavut to illustrate to readers the challenges and successes that the introduction of GPS’s within the community over the last decade has had on traditional navigational practices. The authors ultimately attempt to position the situation in Igloolik to society as a whole with regards to our argued “disengagement with nature” as a direct result of increased integration of technology (or as the authors state: “machinery”) within the fabric of society.
Palmer and Rundstrom, geographers, dutifully responded to Aporta and Higgs’ article, reminding the authors that the study of technology, geography, society, and their interactions is not a new concept: GIScience has been working on these issues already for over a decade, and that important nuances tie them all together; nuances that the authors fail to recognize.
What is evident from this piece, is that the athours view GIS as a tool (not a science). They suggest that technology is contaminating “authentic” engagements with our surroundings, voicing “worry” and “concern about the effects of GPS technology”, as they claim it “takes the experience [of fully relating to the activity we perform] away” (745). This is a grand oversimplification, as there are many degrees to which society can and does interact with technology, either passively or actively.
In my experience, the use of a GPS has given me more confidence when hiking in unfamiliar territory, and allowed me to successfully navigate to otherwise hidden natural wonders, thus increasing my interaction with my surroundings in a positive way.
I posit that it is the lack of institutional programs in place that teach traditional Inuit navigation systems that is to blame for the increasing reliance on GPS devices by the younger generations. GPS’s are not easy to learn how to use, as the authors suggest, as it can take months, even years, to understand all the underlying geospatial concepts and how to work with the technology within harsh environments. It is easy to learn to push buttons in a few days, yes, but to master its use, to the level that you would have to master the concepts underlying traditional navigation systems for it to be a “completely reliable” tool, would require, I argue, just as long.
The last line of the article truly highlights its lack of scientific integrity:
“ However, we believe that this fundamental premise is right: if life is lived through devices, finding meaning (personal, social, and environmental) becomes more difficult and engaging with our social and physical surroundings becomes less obvious and appropriate” (746).
Nowhere in the article do the hunters of Igloolik suggest a loss of fundamental identity; all they suggest is that their society is evolving, as do all societies; and that, yes, technology is fallible, but nonetheless important, and, dare I suggest, welcome.
-ClaireM