Month: February 2019

If Convergence Culture is the Future….

Reading Jenkins’ 2004 “Why Heather Can’t Read” first, I have strong opinions about the themes of this week’s readings. In short, conflict exists over the notion that homeschooled students  spend time critically analyzing and rewriting fiction, such as the works of Harry Potter. On one hand, Education Professors, such as University of Wisconsin-Madison Professor James Gee marvel at students’ ability to become more active, engage, analyze, and publish at such a young age.

However, Literary “purist” question those students’  ability to develop into creative writers at such a young age. The opposing argument that I gather from the text is that these students are likely not reading and writing at the level that they would if they were in traditional school setting studying classing works and being taught by teachers.

As someone who has taught extremely gifted students whose writing abilities exceeded most of my undergraduate students, I can attest that there are students whose intelligence intimidates the average teacher or professor. They benefit from independent student and they should have the option or freedom to expand their writing craft with literature that’s interesting.

This is not a question of whether Heather “can” or “cannot ” read. The question is why try to measure Heather’s ability to read based on her desire to read what “society” or traditional public school dictates she should read?

Regarding Democratizing TV and Reader-Moderating News Content, I saw this as very similar to the previous argument.

If reader moderated content was created to foster unity, empathy, and civil discourse, I think that students like Heather Lawver are ahead of the curve.

I am not so sure this social media and attention seeking society is responsible enough to rewrite core stories unless those core stories are for fictional and entertainment purposes.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York

University Press. (PDF)

Read the Introduction, Chapter 5, and Conclusion (A version of Chapter 5 is also

available

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/402471/why-heather-can-write/

I’m intrigued by Anonymous. I’m not alone. Coleman’s description of the group and her participation (at least conversationally) sheds light on a group that intrigues many of us. There are some hackers, she writes, but Anonymous isn’t a group of hackers. It’s more like a group of people having an often-pointless conversation. And the conversation is very familiar.

Like the group of men around a campfire who confused Milner by praising and cursing the same subjects. I know that group. I have uncles like that. Cousins, too. And I know this conversation well. I’ve enjoyed it and I’ve been confused by it.

Both the confessions (in a way) of Coleman and the often-hilarious analysis from Whitney and Milner remind me of those days, standing in a circle, killing time with a bunch of guys, drinking beer, and … making no sense at all. The older I grew, the more common and familiar this type of conversation became. It was everywhere. And I was often confused. And I was often amused.

In the same conversation, someone could be hailed as a genius and an idiot. The person who was trampled (conversationally) the week before was now a hero. The idea of doing something crazy was talked about as if it would never happen, then a few people would do it for fun.

This experience is profoundly human. The same people who sit and have coffee in the afternoon might, under different circumstances, participate in a protest. It really depends on the conversation at the time, the freeness with which people feel they can speak, and the audacity of some person who’s willing to try out an idea.

I’ll use the American Revolution as an example (though I may argue, at some point, that it was really the US Revolution, but that’s for another post). Quite a few historians (and Samuel Adams Brewing) would remind us that many of the early ideas of a revolution were created in bars, where exactly this aforementioned type of conversation could have taken place. Nearby (and in the bars) were groups of Freemasons who, through oaths of loyalty, found a space to speak on any subject in a similar manner. Whether bar talk or secret meeting, people were speaking freely. Somewhere in that discussion, both love of the monarchy and the idea that it should be overthrown were tossed about. Somebody pitched a crazy idea. Next thing you know, a bunch of guys dressed as Native Americans (not their term) pitched a bunch of tea in the harbor. The conversation spread … freely. Secretly. Then actively.

The combination of a trusted space and free expression bring up our love of contradiction. It’s confusing. It’s also familiar. Create a space where people can “be themselves” and this is what happens … at least every time I’ve seen it. Today the internet is that space.

Anonymous is just as much a group of people with a safe space to have conversations as Milner’s drunk uncles around a campfire. And every now and then, any one of those people could shoot off a crazy idea and … occasionally … someone does it.

Aristocrats historically feared and even suppressed free speech and public forums. It’s unpredictable. And unpredictable is the opposite of order. And order is how to maintain the system of whatever it is you were trying to keep together to preserve wealth and power and all else. The real treasure of history’s secret societies was their ability to create a space to discuss anything. Simple things. Funny things. Oddities. Revolutions. Good ideas. Crazy ideas. But it’s never just the secret societies who pull this off. Put a group of people in a downtown salon, a bar, a hunting camp, or around a kitchen table and, once they feel they can speak freely (i.e. trust one another), these are the things that happen.

Anonymous and weirdness on the internet in general aren’t oddities at all. They are reflections of who we are when we’re with trusted people and feel free to speak without holding back. Anonymous and the internet are groups of people in spaces where they can have free conversations about anything. And occasionally, someone gets a crazy idea. And occasionally, someone in that group knows how to do that crazy idea. Then you end up with a television show like Jackass or a political revolution. But mostly Jackass.

What I took away in reading about convergence was the inevitability of change, and how we navigate those transitions. Convergence is the new generation thinking of functionality that meets the technological needs still present in a more efficient and flexible capacity. The “New Orleans Media Experience” itself was a reflection of convergence where the public met the experts to bridge the divide, and turns into a giant technological brainstorming. Fascinating.

As I read more deeply, I found myself returning to the question, “Is convergence the act of the horse pulling the cart, or the cart pulling the horse?” It seems to me, that there is a dance of sorts between the two. This thought is supported by Jenkins claim that, “convergence refers to a process, not an endpoint” (16). It is easy to see this as technological growth itself is a process. If you stop, you lose; or in Jenkins words, “Producers who fail to make their peace with this new participating culture will face declining goodwill and diminishing revenues” (24).

I was reminded of convergence, and Jenkins example of how we watch television has changed. When I was watching an Amazon Studios series called The Last Tycoon. Not only does the fact that Amazon, a streaming on-demand way of viewing television, portray the point of moving from mass television and renting dvd’s, etc., the content of the show was a reflection of convergence. The series portrays Hollywood past, before the days of unions and legalities that took away the power of the corporate machine that was in place, and also reduced the amount of abuse that was accepted as expected. The people voiced their needs, and battled toward a process that better suited humanity.

As discussed in Jenkins book, convergence is a democratic process that offers the people with vested interest to participate in the direction that their technology of their choice proceeds. Yes, there are limitations to the amount of influence that that consumer can wield, but it is a far cry from the days of Hollywood. Jenkins “argued that convergence encourages participation and collective intelligence” (256), and collaborating to ensure that the media and technology work for the people, and not just the inverse is the way of the future. It is the right direction.

Works Cited

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.

danah boyd, in her piece “Why Youth Heart Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life,” reports that during her research, no matter how many teens she spoke to and regardless of whether they used MySpace or not:

“I have yet to find one who does not have something to say about the sites, albeit typically something negative. In essence, MySpace is the civil society of teenage culture: whether one is for it or against it, everyone knows the site and has an opinion about it.” (p. 121)

this, in combination with this Wired article I came across last week, prompts me add to boyd’s list of what makes mediated, networked publics so unique. along with their persistent, searchable, and replicable qualities, they are also practically unavoidable. they are pervasive and ubiquitous. even Jenkins bemoans the fact that he cannot buy a “dumb” phone anymore. you can get one of these https://www.thelightphone.com/, but it still won’t work without a smartphone behind it.

even the most set-in-their-ways anti-social-media individual probably has friends, family, coworkers, neighbors, etc. who engage with networked publics in some way. I’m reminded of an instance several years ago when my younger brother posted something on facebook, which a family friend went on to ask my father about later in the day. this sparked a bout of mild outrage when dad, puzzled about how the friend knew to ask, learned what my brother had shared. since then, my dad has given in and adopted a smart phone, but he is meticulous and vocal about his efforts to keep his personal identity off the internet as much as possible. he may have had more success than the parents in the Wired article linked above.

another theme I noticed among boyd, Jenkins, and the Silberman piece was the importance of the embodied aspects of digital technologies. Jenkins especially, in his efforts to document perspectives on digital convergences, often focuses on how the digital bleeds into the physical and changes our material realities, influences our physical habits as well as our intellectual ones. after all, media is not only an abstract “out there” element of our communicative landscape. the definition Jenkins cites from Lisa Gitelman is useful and key here– media is both:
1. A technology to enable communication.
2. Protocols and practices that grow around the technology itself (p. 13-14).

since 2004, 2006, and 2009 when our authors were researching and writing these pieces, many things have changed. I hope we’ve become more cognizant of how digital media practices can have massive impact on society–not just for teens, not just for those who participate directly in networked publics, but for pretty much everyone (and our planet, as a recent twitter-thread points out).

a few of us pointed to Jenkins’s concluding warnings when we met last week. he writes:

“There are no guarantees that we will use our new power any more responsibly than nation-states or corporations have exercised theirs. We are trying to hammer out the ethical codes and social contracts that will determine how we will relate to one another just as we are trying to determine how this power will insert itself into the entertainment system or into the political process.” (p 256)

such a warning is still very relevant. much of how we want the world to be is (and maybe always has been) under debate, still in progress. digital cultures aren’t immune from all of that.

two small postscripts:
yet another interesting twitter thread that seems relevant to our discussion of echo chambers, filter bubbles, media bias, etc.

I’ve also discovered that danah boyd keeps a blog.

“Instead, convergence represents a cultural shift as consumers are encouraged to seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content.” — Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture

This is good stuff.

The dot-com bubble, as he later discusses, was water flowing against blockage. That way simply didn’t flow. So water does what it always does — it finds a path without resistance. It wasn’t the death of digital media, it was a way that didn’t work. It was companies trying to use the methods of traditional media to make a living the only way they knew how up to that point. They hit the rock. Consumers kept going around the rock and moved on to blogging and Twitter and Instagram and Facebook. Companies adapted by embracing influencers and new methods of supplying content that now people seemed okay paying to receive. The subscription service became ubiquitous (for better or worse). The dot-com-blockage was simply an old route that didn’t work anymore. But new routes work better for those who adapt.

How many times have we read the phrase “survival of the fittest?” It’s not true. That’s not how evolution works. I read an article stating that it’s not even an accurate quote. The author of that article claims Darwin never said as much but rather implicated that the creatures who adapted remained. Because the adaptable were the majority of the gene pool, the next generation inherited those characteristics. A handful of creatures didn’t adapt because they weren’t required to do so. Sharks. Alligators. They could stay largely the same. But that’s a small percentage of the whole population of creatures.

Adaptation is key and it’s happening all around us. Just this week, a stream of articles underscored what Microsoft has slowly admitted to for a while now … that Internet Explorer is a dead (or at least dying) software. Reporters dug up release notes about how Microsoft wasn’t supporting the platform any longer. They weren’t even updating it or planning to do so in the future. It’s still around because there is a generation of people who haven’t adapted to new browsers such as Chrome or Microsoft’s struggling Edge. The newer browsers embrace HTML5 more completely and run faster because they’ve left legacy code (and security holes) behind. But still, many people aren’t adapting. However, because the main browsers in the “gene pool” are the ones who run on more updated code, most applications have abandoned IE altogether. Consequently, those who haven’t adapted to new browsers are being left out. They’re complaining … like reptiles in the La Brea Tar Pits.

It’s good news and bad news but it’s really old news we’ve read again and again. Talk about the good old days is a myth. There are no easier times, just different times. We are beings in constant search of simple answers to complex questions and, as tough as that may sound to achieve, every invention we create achieves exactly that.

But there is an interesting thing humans do … we counter. We rebel. And we make that countering and rebellious nature into a magnetic culture. We smoke cigarettes despite the warnings (especially in Europe). We buy dumb phones (although this isn’t totally a cultural icon … yet). Check out clips and photos from the Grammy’s and count the types of watches. Most of them were mechanical (mechanical watch sales are up) and, the ones that weren’t mechanical were the old-school Casio single-function watches. (I didn’t spot a single Apple Watch.) I wonder if Casio ever expected to see a resurgence in sales for such a simple timepiece that was all the rage when digital watches first became available decades ago? I wonder, too, how much counter-culture will impact the evolution of new culture?

If past is prologue, I’m guessing there’s a way to theorize what might happen. I’m just excited to watch (pardon the pun).

“Why Youth Heart Social Network Sites” was a great article from a historic standpoint that still addresses the needs of the ramifications of its emerging impact. I recall the early days of MySpace, and I guess by the time I joined the conversation it was already losing steam in the youthful circles. I was a bit confused by the articles dates because it seemed to me that by 2007 Facebook was already gaining ground over MySpace. Even recently, there was a Facebook meme initiative of eliciting profile pics from today and ten years ago.

Nonetheless, there is a lot going on in the article where the ramifications are still unknown; yet, we are gaining insights to social media’s strengths and weaknesses. Danah Boyd, early on, mentions that youthful engagement in social networks affect “identity formation, status negotiation, and peer-to-peer sociality” (119), and we decidedly see this today in developing identity importance to the youth, as well as adults. Having a lot of friends is still a status gauge, and we develop our online presence through peer-to-peer feedback and engagement, good or bad.

I found it interesting to learn that these sites were developed out of the dating services industry. As I read on, it was clear why some of the information fields are what they are. Boyd’s discussion about mediated and unmediated worlds was eye-opening as thoughts about privacy in a public forum should be intuitive, yet, we don’t often think about that under the guise of “privacy settings”. More importantly, is the fact that things saved in the site databases are permanent even if it’s not available to
“all” others. Considering that anything put on the site may not stay only on there, it’s searchable and sharable because “a mediated public …  consist[s] of all people across all space and all time” (126).

One term I personally related to was “social voyeurism”, as I periodically enjoy perusing my “wall” on Facebook, but don’t actually post very much, and it is a voyeuristic form of participating, but not really entering the conversation. Similarly, when Boyd discusses our parental drive to keep tabs on our teenagers, and our mixed hold and release relationship that we have with our children, is voyeuristic in nature. We, adults, have a need to “see” what our kids are doing, but don’t often know what to do with that information, as exhibited in the misunderstanding of Allen and his daughter Sabrina. Allen who had a good relationship with his daughter, was confused about her post that her personality was like cocaine; he knew that this information could be misconstrued by others. Yet, how do we monitor what we think is right in a world that is generationally more open to this type of sharing.

Some of the things we share, all while knowing it is public, can be helpful or harmful. It can help us understand the world, and build social skills, or it can be hurtful and cause strong emotions, such as, anger, extreme sadness, or a detrimental self-image. Common discourse around the value of social media interactions are currently grappling with when the hurt kills. These things are happening. A question that came to my mind is how can we circumvent these negative consequences to a remote free speech venue as these networks have changed our social priorities from real world exchanges (and the politeness, and restraint that accompany them) to a fictional, or idealized reality, because although Boyd claims, “Our role as adults is not to be [teenagers’] policemen, but to be their guide” (137), and this is often not happening, or not accepted in the face of peer priority.

Who Doesn’t Love a Metamorphosis Reference? Seriously!

Silberman’s “We’re Teen, We’re Queer, and We’ve Got E-mail” was my first read and I enjoyed it initially from the play on words in the title and the Metamorphosis references. Silberman’s goal was not only to entertain but to garner understanding and sympathy for those teenagers who lived years projecting a perfect heterosexual lifestyle for their families while seeking to explore their true sexual identities and validate themselves online.

However, while the internet brought so many opportunities for youth to find acceptance, this was somewhat like the opening of Pandora’s Box. You could not “unsee” the possible dangers that awaited unsuspecting teenagers who fell into the trappings of predators. This makes me think of my experience teaching high schoolers and college freshmen. I have had students share that they have met people on line and have traveled across the country to meet random soul mates, sometimes ending in situations reminiscent of a Catfish episode. They are far braver than I was in high school.

The same song to a different tunewas my initial thought upon reading Boyd’s qualitative study “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” Eons ago I imagine most adults, at some point during those awkward teenage years dreamed of attracting that popular boy or girl. We would infiltrate that it crowd by doing this amazingly cool thing or telling this hilariously funnyjoke and the legacy of our high school deeds and iconic love affairs would live on in the minds of our peers forever. Unfortunately for anyone who had to endure their teenage years during the social media age, their high school memories will not replay like an episode of The WonderYears or evoke a sense of nostalgia.

Instead, as Boyd reminds us, social media sites like Myspace and Facebook became playgrounds and parks at a rapidly growing rate in the 2000s and this number increased steadily. There were some interesting facts about social media and teenage usage and I appreciate the objectivity of the study; however, as someone who taught teenagers for 13 years through years of social media, I found some of the qualitative responses to be somewhat controlled, generic, or unlikely.

Or perhaps I am reading this study with more knowledge of their social media behaviors now that it is 2019 and this study is from 2007.

Silberman, Steve. 1994. “We’re Teen, We’re Queer, and We’ve Got E-mail.” Wired Magazine. https://www.wired.com/1994/11/gay-teen/

Boyd, Danah. 2007. “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David Buckingham. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. MIT Press. 119–142. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1518924

 

Although my teen years are far behind me (thank goodness for that) I was still able to relate to many of the ideas presented.  The first two ideas that relate to the types of teens that did not participate in MySpace was one that I can relate to as both as a parent and nonparticipant. The first is that of the disenfranchised teen. When my daughter was a young teen (13) I did not allow her to have a MySpace account, because I was afraid of the potential for her to be exposed to something that she was not equipped to handle unknown. My feelings were kind of akin to Dr. Chelsey’s in regards to the chatrooms that she entered as a kid. She did eventually get a Facebook account in high school.  We recently discussed MySpace, and she shared with me that she is glad that she didn’t have an account, because she remembers how “lame” she was when she set up her Facebook account.  She went on to explain that as she sought to establish her identity in high school, she realized that a MySpace account would have simply been a duplication of the culture and identity of her peers.  While she admits that her identity and the culture that she associates with in high school, and today is influenced by her peers, her identity in middle school was completely based upon emulating others. I can also identify with the teens that are conscientious objectors.  This identity also shares some of the characteristics of another point made in the article.  I somewhat identify with the conscientious objectors for some of the same experiences of Stokely Carmichael had with his radio and television audiences in the 1960s (pg 133).  I don’t have a Facebook profile, because there is too much room for my ideas to be taken out of context.  As of late, I’ve been reading lots of texts pertaining to the South both pre and post-Jim Crow era.  In reading these texts I have been examining the hardships that my ancestors were forced to endure, the causes, and repercussions of these hardships. Many things that are a part of the culture that I’ve been enculturated into are being given context and meaning.  I am fully aware that posting or commenting on such things would be taken out of context and some would even express misplaced offense; therefore, I refrain from using any form of media besides my graduate courses to engage in any discussion on this topic.  Last week Naderia mentioned how blocking certain people from seeing items, and I thought of this as an option; however, it would be very difficult for me to ascertain people’s level of offense. It is for these reasons that, I am a conscientious objector.

 

“WE’RE TEEN, WE’RE QUEER, AND WE’VE GOT EMAIL”

 

This article was steeped in information regarding, how gay teens (GTs) have used and are still using the internet as a means of establishing their identities and .  Silberman makes the claim that GTs undergo a complete change in establishing their identities, “…the saga of gay teens online is one of metamorphosis, of “little mini” nerds becoming warriors in a hidden Stronghold of Power.  For young queers, the Magic Ring is the bond of the community.” I think that the culture that media provides for GTs is essential in determining how they want to identify themselves to society. The subject of the article is described as being a voice for those that are not able or willing to speak for themselves. The anonymity of the internet allows many of them to engage with others that share in their beliefs and preferences without having to deal with the politics of justifying being a GT. The internet is their safe place where they can interact and just be themselves Silberman says, “ Online interaction gives teens a chance to unmask themselves in a safe place, in a venue where individuals make themselves known by the acuity of their thought and expression, rather than by their physical appearance.”  The most important thing that I took from this article is that prior to the internet it was far more difficult for GTs to meet and congregate with other GTs. Silberman stated that prior to the internet GTs had to wait until they were of age to enter bars that were gay-friendly in order to engage in gay culture