Who's in charge around here?

I've smushed my Wenger and Nardi/O'Day reflections together.  Nardi and O'Day speak of technology as either tools, texts or systems. 
These metaphors run parallel to our class themes design, community and
identity, in my opinion.  The two equate tools to, ".. something made
to fit in the hands and minds of individual human beings (27)"  with
intrinsic features called affordances defined as, "those properties of
an object that neatly support the actions people intend to take with
the object (28)."    In other words, tools have certain attributes
built into them which people then use to do actions, jobs or tasks. 
Tools are designed to assist humans in specific ways.  Design
implies intention, there is a task this toll is made to do, but as
Nardi and O'Day point out, "Some of a tool's affordances emerge during
use, unanticipated by designers (29)" When Swedish scientists designed
the internet to disseminate data did they intend for it to one day be
used by many to find true love a la match.com, eharmony.com etc etc? 
Did they see it as a forum for people to set up shop and start a home
business a la ebay or to search for and download music, movies and
radio a la iTunes?  I am willing to make the leap that these
affordances were not intended as part of the design, they emerged
through the use of the tool.  The tool guided it's own use.  We have
definitely proceeded with "reverse adaptation" as the two suggested,
changing our behaviors to coincide with the tool's affordances.  Scary?
Perhaps.  Foreseen? No. Here to stay? Most definitely! So the question
on the table now is not how do we resist technology, as Foucault calls
for, but rather how do we move forward as an informed community?Nardi
and O'Day move on to discuss technology as a text, "a form of
communication, a carrier of meaning that may be reinterpreted as the
technology passes through different social situations (31)."  This is
the metaphor I find most comfortable with.  It implies alteration,
appropriation and modification by users not simple acceptance and
utilization.  Technology as text, facilitates community. 
People come together via the common bond of a shared technology, yet
they are no longer bound by time and space.  Familiarities emerge and
individuals connect in ways unimagined prior to the technology.  But as
Wenger indicates, a community only becomes a community of practice when
members employ a notion of shared learning.  Wenger goes on to say
that, "Practice is always located in time and space because it always
exists in specific communities and arises out of mutual engagement
(130)" I agree with this notion but wish to expand our ideas of "time
and space".  Community implies interactions, engagement and
participation which is why Wenger asserts that a DVD player in not part
of the community of a family while a loved dog is, so community is
inherently human and humans exists, we are situated in a specific
location and are alive at a certain time in history.  Though our bodies
are bound by time and space, our ideas extend beyond ourselves.  Mutual
participation can arise  between anyone, not just those sitting next to
us.  A 34 year old stock broker in New York can be more intimately
connected to a colleague in Japan than to his boss down the hall.  Yes,
trade-offs are inherent.  This became painfully obvious in the
Rheingold piece where he, rather offhandedly, mentions that his family
has gotten used to him spending his evenings on the computer rather
then interacting with them but aren't some the tradeoffs worthwhile? 
If an individual finds someone online who can dramatically assist and
augment his thinking about a specific project, so as to move that
project forward, and spends many hours talking online with this person
rather than chatting with his colleague in the next cubicle over; may
the tradeoff between a personal relationship with his colleague versus
achievement, job recognition and a pay raise be worth it?  I propose
that yes, some trade-offs are worthwhile and welcome but that we must
exercise caution and make informed decisions on which trade-offs we
find acceptable.  The metaphor for technology as system, is the
one I find most troublesome as Nardi and O'Day warned.  Their
discussion of Technique sent chills up my spine with visions of The
Matrix swarming my thoughts.  Yet many of their arguments rang true,
especially in term of reverse adaptation.  We respond to the
affordances of technology and react accordingly.  If a cell phone is
not getting reception inside a building we move outside.  If a fax
machine is broken we mail a form instead.  If email is down we make a
phone call.  Technology is shaping our actions.  But isn't what we do
ultimately who we are?  When you meet someone for the first time one of
the first questions is, "What do you do?" What we do is how we interact
with others, how the world sees us and at the end of the day how we
view ourselves.  If, when we try to get our luggage off the revolving
beltway at the airport, grab it at the wrong time, have a bad angle,
are unable to lift properly and end up in a heap on the floor after
being pulled down by 45 pounds worth of suitcase, then we become
embarrassed, and may label ourselves as a klutz or worse!  Because of
having to grab a bag off of an assembly line technology rather than the
floor we have altered our self-image.  If what we do influences how we
see ourselves and how we see ourselves is who we are then technology is
shaping our identity; and if technology begets technology, who is really running the show here?