iEra: The Analysis of the iPhone as a Cultural Object

The iPhone is possibly the most popular object of the North American popular culture. Its popularity is perhaps best illustrated through its immense market which was estimated to be as big as 53.6 million iPhone users in 2013, in the U.S. only (“Forecast”). By reaching such a large portion of the population, the iPhone inevitably influences its social world (the context in which the iPhone exists). However, the iPhone is also subject to be influenced by the social world. Similarly, receivers and producers of the iPhone are affected by and are able to affect the social world, the iPhone itself, and each other. This four-way relationship is the centerpiece of Griswold’s Cultural Diamond model which will be used in this essay to explore the iPhone as a cultural object in North America (Griswold 16). The following essay will not, however, for the sake of content limitation, give an exhaustive analysis of the impact of the iPhone. Instead, it will analysis the iPhone as a cultural object through different angles (the four aspects of the cultural diamond), systematically illustrated by examples.

What is so special about the iPhone? And why has it become a cultural object? In 2007, the first iPhone was a pioneer in combining internet, telephony, music, and a camera in a truly user-friendly way. However, focusing on easy internet usage was Apple’s real strategy to distinguish its products from other smartphones and reaching a far greater market than any other previously existing smartphone (West and Mace). Subsequently, the iPhone became the benchmark of smartphones, elevating the standard of such products like never before and engendered numerous social consequences. Therefore, although certain phenomena described hereafter could now be assigned to smart phones in general, the iPhone was the first smart phone to popularise such phenomena. This section about the impact of the iPhone on the social world will focus on the creation of social division resulting from possessing an iPhone and, on the opposite, the social bonding that the iPhone made possible. Firstly, iPhones create class division as people who have iPhones, intentionally or not, distinguish themselves from others. Indeed, having an iPhone gives them membership to an in-group. For example, iPhone carriers are able to relate and socialize with other members of the group by talking about the different models of the iPhone, participate in the media buzz around the iPhone, share tips about apps, etc. in contrast to the persons who do not have an iPhone – the out-group. In contrast, by providing people with constant and easy internet access, the iPhone enabled people to be much more connected to each other because of the possibility to communicate more easily. Ironically, however, it has also brought people to spend more time on their phone which disconnects them from the real world and other people physically around them (Kaplan and Haenlein 67). Indeed, the iPhone also negatively impact certain users like some corporate users who report an urge to check their e-mails on their smartphone (Turek and Serenko 43). This example illustrates a serious technologic addiction which has been recognized as a “psychiatric disorder” which could lead to serious detriment for a person’s life (Turek & Serenko 44). This compulsive usage of the iPhones seem to highlight a certain need for the users to be in control, when they are in fact losing control of their lives by handing it to the virtual world. The iPhone also impacts its own producers. For example, the success of the iPhone put on a lot a pressure on the producers to keep innovating so to not deceive the expectations.

This year, Eduard Snowden has revealed that the American National Security Agency is able to retrieve information from iPhone users, including text messages and phone calls (Spiegel Online). This information perfectly illustrates how the social world can impact the way receivers of the iPhone use this cultural object and how they perceive it, in this case, as a means for surveillance and centralized power through multinational corporations. It might also simply dissuade a user to purchase an iPhone as his or her next phone. This information could also influence the producers of the iPhone to integrate different functions in their next model to guarantee further privacy. Ideologies and values are other, less obvious, components of the social world that can influence receivers. For example, the value of personal distinction, the social pressure on people to possess the most recent commodity, and the aspiration toward objects which give people a feeling of belong to a privileged class could influence certain users to sell their old iPhone for the latest model. The media and general conversations around the iPhone also play a big role in advertising the release of a new model which brings people to queue for days in front of Apple Stores (Al Arabiya). This desperate behaviour can be understood by the fact that, ultimately, these are the people who will have the real privilege of distinguishing themselves by displaying their new possession as new iPhones always created much hype in the population. However, this ephemeral privilege quickly fades as more and more people acquire the latest model. At last, the social world impacted the creation of the iPhone as this cultural object was obviously designed to accommodate busy and multitasking contemporary persons. For example, the iPhone turns into a GPS, an encyclopedia, or a dictionary when needed, which can save a lot of time.

The role of the producer is also fundamental in understanding a fuller picture of a cultural object. In the case of the iPhone, a particular producer played a significant role in the confirmation of the iPhone as a cultural object. Indeed, especially after his death, Steve Jobs became part of the cultural object itself. His story and his person – as a popular icon who funded of Apple Inc. – contribute to the popularity of the iPhone and the creation its myth-like image. For example, “iSteve”, a comic version of his biography, suggests that Steve Jobs had mystical visions which gave him the idea of the iPhone (iSteve). Many other documentaries and movies participated in the creation of the cult of personality of Jobs, including his best-seller biography which demonstrates the hype around his person (Gustin).  Of course, apart from Steve Jobs, numerous individuals and corporations from all around the world collaborated and contributed to the creation of the iPhone. Indeed, the creation of an iPhone starts with Apple designing and marketing the product. The rest of the production, however, is subcontracted to nine firms located in four different countries (Xing and Detert). By doing so, Apple then affect the social world by contributing to the globalization trend of shifting manufacturing work outside of the United State. Similarly, by having the iPhone assembled in China, Apple reinforces a global capitalism trend in which developed countries take advantage of developing countries by exploiting their cheap labor force and resources (Xing and Detert). Furthermore, the producer’s decision to release a new model of the iPhone every year contributes to the consumerist trend of capitalistic societies. On the other end of the production chain, receivers are also impacted by certain choices that the producers make; to the extent that it can sometimes limit their degree of freedom. For example, through iTunes (the music platform of the iPhone), a receiver will only be able to purchase certain music versus others. Another example of this restriction is found in Google Maps (a by-default feature of the iPhone) where only a narrow number of businesses will appear after a search for their service. These two examples illustrate how the methods and decisions of the produces limit the possibilities of the receivers and their understanding of the full picture.

However, receivers are not passive consumers of the iPhone; they also participate in the creation of the iPhone as a cultural object by discussing among them, advertising the product to their friend, etc. A more obvious way in which receivers can contribute to the creation of the iPhone as a cultural object is by creating apps for the device (“The App Builder”). This bottom-up influence also ensures that the iPhone responds to all their needs and interests. Furthermore, by depending on the iPhone for many daily tasks (e.g. taking the bus, cooking, etc.), the users of the iPhone are, inadvertently, generating a shift toward a point of non-return for society. Indeed, after experiencing such ease and usefulness, the chances of going back to a place where smartphones are not needed is very unlikely. This trend will be even more certain as receivers give their children access to their own iPhone or purchase iPhones for their children (Koningsberg). Furthermore, receivers’ automatism of using the iPhone for daily tasks generates rituals in people’s lives that will eventually be transmitted to the next generation.

As seen above, the iPhone reflects the social world: its values, such individual achievement as oppose to a collaborative work; its forces, such as globalization; and its processes, such as capitalism. However, other than being a mere representation of the social world, the iPhone is also playing and important role in shaping it. Indeed, by being a precursor in providing such an easy internet access on a large scale, the iPhone lead society toward an increasing dependency on technological devices despite its negative consequences for its users and other international players. If the full understanding of the impact of this dependency is so far hard to grasp, it seems to indicate a profound disruption of former ways and means.  For this reason, the iPhone is much more than a product of our society. It is a religious-like phenomenon – with Steve Jobs as a messiah, the apple as a representative symbol, and users as followers performing rituals – signaling a new era in which our human needs are answered by technological comfort.