Week 3 Participatory Culture

          The task for this blog is a commentary on a topic or issue from the Networked Publics book edited by Varnelis.  This is very difficult considering that it is a book that discusses many different ideas from various authors from assorted disciplines with diverse concentrations.  In the introduction, Mizuko Ito explains that the book is tied together by 4 key trends: “accessibility to digital tools and networks, many-to-many and peer-to-peer forms of distribution, value at the edges, and aggregation of culture and information.” (Varnelis, 2008) I chose to concentrate on the 1^st key trend and issue: accessibility to digital tools and networks.  As I stated before, it was difficult to choose 1 topic, because they are all interrelated.  I will try to stay focused on the issue of accessibility and also the assigned prompts guiding the reflection.

            The title of the book is Networked Publics, and is defined by Ito as: “linked set of social, cultural, and technological developments that have accompanied the growing engagement with digitally networked media.”  (Varnelis, 2008) He clarifies this definition in explaining that networked publics is an alternative term to audience or consumer.  This concept as network publics being an informational consumer is directly related to access issues spoken about in the video from Henry Jenkins.  Jenkins touches on many issues, but they are all contingent on networked publics internet access.  He is speaking about the emergent participatory culture that has developed out of emerging technologies.  This internet culture is participatory because it gives the connected data consumer the ability to participate in information gathering, dissemination, creation and collaboration like never before. 

            What are the tools and techniques (or new skills) being put into practice? The book was written in 2008 so the tools discussed aren’t so new, but the skills and implications are many.  When it comes to accessibility all of the readings and videos point to the low barriers needed for internet access.  Yochai Benkler writes about easy access by explaining, “The move to a communications environment built on cheap processors with high computation capabilities, interconnected in a pervasive network.”  The tools needed are ubiquitous: smart phones, laptop computers, tablets, GPS and iPods.  The access is almost ever-present using various wireless networks that connect the networked public to the Web.  I work in NYC and many subway stations have free WiFi underground.  If you have the tool, you can pay for a connection or find a free hotspot.  I am currently at a public library on vacation in Virginia using their internet connection.  There are many implications to this ubiquitous accessibility.  I will concentrate on one skill: multitasking.  Varnelis writes about the telecocoon concept in his chapter with Friedberg.  He uses as an example the tools available in the modern car.  While I am driving on my vacation, I have simultaneously working technologies similar to Varnelis’ example such as: GPS, iPod, and blue tooth connection to my phone.  Inside this telecocoon of an automobile I have a connection to an unquestionably large information network.  While I am engaged in all this technology, I am also driving.  This is the modern art of multitasking that I believe many of us are participating, yet we don’t think too much about it.

            What is/are the key issue(s) outlined in or underlying the text (think in terms of Green’s model: operational, cultural and critical)?  There are many issues outlined in the text including the major legal matter of Copyright in the digital age.  We have access to text, movies, music, and other copyrighted material.  We do not have the right to copy someone else’s intellectual property, yet most of us networked publics are posting copyrighted material on our social network sites without regard for legality.  It is the ubiquitous access that allows for many types of copyright infringement.  It would be almost impossible to prosecute all copyright violators and if they were ever successful most networked publics would be guilty.

            Returning to Green’s model in relation to accessibility, the operational dimension is a low hurdle.  The most obvious operational concepts in relation to accessibility have already been discussed: the ease of acquiring the tools needed to participate and the wireless access that is almost everywhere.  Getting deeper into the skills needed for access into the network, Jenkins says that there are low barriers and informal mentoring in learning how to operate in our participatory culture.  Many of the operational skills are intuitive.  My 3 year old daughter can already open my smart phone and access her favorite games and websites.  Many of the college students I have instructed are digital immigrants.  I have successfully mentored most of them into participatory culture in my information literacy course.  I have taught students who were in prison for over 10 years and have no internet skills.  I told them that they are in the right place to get acclimated to modern society and become employable.  I have taught a mother and son in the same class.  The son caught on to many of the concepts faster, but the mother soon caught up in digital literacy.  These skills are intuitive and easily taught if they are not acquired naturally.

            The cultural dimension is related to access in how this accessibility is being used.  Varnelis makes a perfect example in explaining the modern scenario at any Starbucks coffee house.  You have assorted people connecting to remote assorted people in the same physical space.  In the scenario, “a woman next to you is browsing the internet with her laptop, a late-career executive is thumbing his Blackberry, two students are studying together…” (Varnelis, 2008) He goes on to illustrate a familiar scene.  Varnelis even sets up this scenario explaining that even if you go to Starbucks with your moleskin notebook without your cell phone because you are trying to break away from the network, it cannot be avoided.  Like organized crime, once initiated, you can never leave the network.  Other cultural implications include internet dating – which a whole blog can be written about.

            In my opinion, it is the critical dimension that is most crucial.  This is where my feelings and opinions will be expressed most strongly.  Information is not only easy to access, but indicative of participatory culture, easy to publish.  In the old publishing cycle, if you wanted your information disseminated you had to go through a long process.  Maybe your information would be rejected along the way.  In the modern publication cycle, anybody can instantly publish their viewpoints.  Anybody can compose a blog or start a webpage on most any subject matter. Jenkins sees this in a positive light in that this allows for alternative views.  There is also a negative spin to the ease of publication on the internet.  As detailed in last week readings, there are spoof websites. There are also racist and sexist websites and blogs.  Google “Martin Luther King” and http://www.martinlutherking.org/ will be on the first page of search results. It may seem to be a legitimate webpage, but was created by a white supremacist organization.  Students must be critical in evaluating the information available.  Not everything that is accessible is credible.

            I have some closing thoughts in regard to accessibility.  Jenkins is articulate in projecting the positive implications of participatory culture.  He cites a South American politician that believes that network publics can solve many of the world’s problems.  But he acknowledges the social responsibility of all participants when using the modern interpretation of Peter Parker/Spiderman metaphor.  Peter’s uncle in speaking of emerging technology says, “Great power is in your hands.  More power than any previous generation could have imagined.”  This is the acknowledgement of the danger, “with great power comes great responsibility.”  The most negative example I can think of is the Boston Marathon bombing.  The news stated that the terrorists learned to make the bomb from the internet.  I would like to close with the questions: Is all the information accessible beneficial to society? How can we best use and produce accessible information for the benefit of society?

 

References

Varnelis, K. (Ed.). (2008). Networked Publics. Mass: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://networkedpublics.org/