Incorporation

Incorporation can be seen as final step, finalising the phase of adoption by incorporating into the body and therefore into the self the object which is now considered an extension of the self or a body part. Etymologically incorporation comes from the Late Latin incorporatus, past participle of incorporare, from Latin in- + corpor-, corpus body. As an intransitive verb, it can be understood as uniting in or as one body. It is this meaning that is described here.

The relation to the object and especially the relation of body to object has always been a subject treated with passion. The object, which also often becomes “alive” as soon as it is integrated into the body, is totally fused or incorporated.

Schielder (1980) shows how the tool becomes integrated in the self through the process of incorporation. As soon as the tool is incorporated in the body, its use becomes natural and the movement is totally coordinated with the tool to perform the action. Schielder’s example of the fork and the action of feeding describes perfectly such a phenomenon. As noted earlier by Leroi-Gourhan (1965): “l’outil n’est réellement que dans le geste qui le rend efficace” (the tool is (exists) only in the movement that makes it effective; translation mine); in fact, this reduced vision of the tool could make us believe that the mobile is more than a tool in that meaning. Belk (1988) emphasises that: “the greater the control we exercise, the more closely allied with self object should become”.

According to Belk (1988, 139) there are several processes involved in self-extension:

“One process is the initial incorporation of objects into our extended selves”. Furthermore, he reflects that “only certain types of possessions are valued as extension of self during adolescence and that self-definition through doing things may be preferred to self-definition through having things” (1988). Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) found that the younger generation is more likely to cite as their favourite possessions those reflecting skills or objects they can manipulate or control. Similarly, Dittmar (1992, 115) reported an interest

in studying the meaning of possessions. She quotes a study made by Kampter [1989] showing how the meaning attached to possessions reflects different developmental stages of the self.

Kampter noted that at the time “for the adolescents, possessions were more varied, but centred on music equipment, cars and jewellery. In addition to enjoyment, the social ties associated with these objects and the aspects of self they expressed emerged as the most common reasons”. Moreover, “Kampter draws on Erikson’s [1980] model of identity development to explain these changes. For Erikson, the adolescents’ main task, consisting in developing a sense of autonomous identity, was mirrored in the adolescents’ activity-related and self-centered references to their possessions”. Moreover, Dittmar (1992, 42) demonstrates that

“possessions are regarded as integral parts of the self and can therefore be considered as self-extensions.”, and thus agrees with the statements of Belk and Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (see also Rosselin 1999, for similar ideas).

Therefore, we could agree that the incorporation of the mobile phone tends to make it somehow an extension of one’s body, and one’s self. For example, we can expect that if a person lost an important object, s/he would feel it as a kind of personal loss. As Dittmar point out, “possessions are regarded as a part of the self, they are spontaneously described as being part of one’s self, they are related in a complex fashion to evaluative aspects of self, and the unintended loss of personal possession transcends financial set-backs because it is experienced as a violation and lessening of self” (1992).

Furthermore, according to Oksman and Rautiainen (2002), “The organic nature of young peoples’ relationship with the mobile phone is evident in the fact that after getting used to owning a mobile phone, it is very difficult to imagine living without one, and leaving the mobile at home creates a feeling of lacking some essential part of oneself”.

Moreover, as noted by many psychologists, during adolescence the image of the body is in constant transformation physically and mentally (Shilder 1980; Dolto 1984; L’Ecuyer 1994;

Anzieu 1994; Bariaud 1999). Moreover, as noted by Birraux (2004) “la place du corps dans les sociétés occidentales est assurément inflationniste” (the place of the body in Western society has more and more importance; translation mine). There, incorporated and therefore as part of the body, the mobile can be constructed in the owner’s own image, and recreated in its own image; moreover, it could be seen as a means of coping with the problem of adapting to the new body image and thus accepting it. Since the body image is constructed during adolescence, mainly as a mirror of the attitudes of peers, the mobile as a representation of the self could be seen as mirroring the process of image-making. Without having to go into the

idea that mobile is a ‘virtual object’, we could consider it an extension of the self, a mirror of the self: “Through my MP you can see me” (Debouvrie 2004).

Bougnoux’s (1999) ideas that “the miniaturisation of the mobile encourages an intimate incorporation with the person; it is in direct relation to the body, like a piece of clothing or jewellery” (translation mine). Saari (2001) writes that: “technology may be seen as an instrumentation which extends human activity” referring to Olson’s [1974] theory, which defined technology as any tool or artifice that amplifies or extends man’s muscular or intellectual abilities. Hulme and Peters (2001) maintain that “ so intimately connected with identity is the mobile phone that many people with mobiles begin to rely on them so much that they see them as an essential item, an extension of their self : ‘It’s part of me.’”

Moreover, they emphasize that “It is as if the mobile phone has come to meet a biological need; more, it has become a part of our bodies and therefore of ourselves”: they stress the idea of the mobile as an extension of the body by comparing it as an ingestion, while presenting how mobile phone use as a pleasure is to be compared to food as a need, a controlled pleasure that leads some to compulsive consumption, but depends on one’s own choice to consume or not, when and where, how and how much (see also Brown et al., 2002).

We should also remember that the mobile can be even more perceived as an extension of the body because it allows the use of many senses. As described by Brown et al (2002, 20-21) it allows “transparency, visibility, audibility” (invisibility).

Similar references to the extension of self have also been pointed out by French researchers;

Jauréguiberry (2003, 21) writes about: “Prolongement de soi”. “Par définition, le portable est près de soi : dans la poche de sa veste, dans son sac à main, dans sa serviette ou sa ceinture.

Le rapport est physique : 85% des possesseurs de portables le portent en permanence sur eux et 21% ne l’éteignent jamais. Le soin qu’accordent les nouveaux utilisateurs à l’apparence de leur portable montre bien combien, au-delà de sa dimension utilitaire, celui-ci est un objet personnel de projection, si ce n’est un prolongement de soi » ; By definition, the mobile phone is near oneself: in the pocket of one’s jacket, in one’s handbag, in one’s luggage or belt. The relation is physical: 85 percent of owners keep it permanently on them and 21 percent never switch it off. The attention paid by new users to their phones shows how much, after its necessary utility dimension, it is an object of projection, when it is not an extension of the self; translation mine). As stated by Oksman and Rautiainen (2002), “Perhaps it’s a body part”. This incorporation of the mobile into one’s body is mainly possible through hand

dexterity¹³, to manipulate the new organ. In fact, many researchers refer to the hand as the most important body part involved in the relationship to the phone (Oksman & Rautiainen, (2002), “I’ve got my whole life in my hand”). We could also point out that the nickname and most usual name for the mobile phone among Finnish adolescents is “kännykkä”, coming from the root: känny: the palm of the hand.

To sum up, as Dittmar (1992, 16) perfectly putted it, I will try through this research, to

‘give an overview of psychologically oriented perspectives on the relationship between people and their possessions’ and thus will explore the phenomenon of MP adoption by adolescents.

Moreover, we believe, as demonstrated above, that possession and self are deeply linked to one another, and thus a study of a group of representations of phone possession by adolescents should help us to know more about the meaning of the device in their everyday life as well as adolescent identity pertaining to the relationship they have with their mobile.

Thus, by asking adolescents about their phone use, their representations of the device (associations, metaphors and images), their relationship to it and personal conceptions of it, I examine their views on the place the mobile has in their lives, and, moreover, determine the role of it has on the development of their self and thus their identity.

I realise that testing this model, it requires a follow-up plan and longitudinal data. As my plan is cross-sectional, I cannot properly test this model. Nevertheless, appropriation, personalization and incorporation can be seen as important aspects of the process of adoption, and this is the way I deal with them in my empirical analyses.

13 There have been studies focusing on the thumbs dexterity of adolescents, which had increased by the intensive use of SMS, (Hill, 2002).