Full of Sound and Fury?

Chapters 6&7 of Participatory Culture

In every age, people have found new ways to get involved and express themselves, and one of the great things about this new digital age is that it has allowed for the world to become even smaller. Jenkins' introduction makes note of this happenstance. He highlights that, even though he grew up and chose a political science focus in college, his personal interests allowed for him to draw parallels between traditional studies and the culture in which he participated during his free time. Studying law is one thing, seeing fans struggling with copywrite issues first hard is another-- it is at this point that the textbooks become real.

Jenkins also talks about how digital communities have become places where young people can learn about political, civil, and moral issues, and see what people outside of their own families believe. The conversation has transitioned from being around the dinner table to the whole world and the funny thing is, you don't even have to leave your house. Participatory culture has done great things in this sense, because it engages the youth in ways that haven't been available in the past. Jenkins says that "Youth have often felt excluded by the kinds of 'policy wonk' or 'inside the belt' language used by more traditional organizations" (157). This does not have to be the case anymore.

This introduction made me think of Tumblr, and the rise of the social justice warrior and, to be honest, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the digital world opens up opportunities for participation in causes and learning new points of view and opinions, which is great, if you are well grounded enough to be investigative. If someone believes something, or has grown up their entire life in one kind of atmosphere, I think they should be challenged. If you're never challenged, how will you ever grow?

On the other hand, it is widely known that the "Tumblr social justice warrior" is not exactly the most grounded character. It's great that people of any age can go online and participate, but the risk here is that things can get disconnected and out of control. It's my worry that a lot of this participation is people who are jumping on the bandwagon of what is popular to complain about, without having any real life experience or knowledge to back it up. We've discussed this in class before-- by being able to pick and choose what news stories you see, what sources you look at, and who gives you information, are you getting a comprehensive view of the other side? That takes an extra step of work that I can only hope people are willing to take. Or, as was discussed in my presentation, talk is great, but action is what counts. It's great that younger people are taking an interest in causes, but what are they doing about it? Do you #feeltheBern, or are you actually voting? And if you are voting, do you know what you're voting for? Are you jumping on a bandwagon, or are you an educated citizen, understanding of both sides? Or are you, as the great Bard once said, full of sound and fury but ultimately signifying nothing?

Going back to the reading, youth participation cannot be ignored. I thought that Mimi Ito's example was perfect to show the power of youth, when thousands of students in LA organized a walk-out via MySpace, IMs, and texting, to protest HR 4437, the border control act of 2005. The media did not cover why the students left, instead it was framed as an issue of truancy. Ito makes a good case, "After years of complaining about teens' failure to engage in political issues, these teens did something pretty phenomenal and classically political, only to be dismissed and ignored" (159). That being said, no matter the organization style, this is also not anything new-- the rebel youth are the ones who often try to make a stand, are pushed down, but, historically, they do make an impact. Think of the hippies.

Later on in the chapter, Mimi again makes a point that I appreciate: "The challenge with youth-only or niche worlds is figuring out connections to other sites of power. Otherwise, they don't harness power beyond the specific community" (164). The things that are discussed sometimes don't the opportunity to be heard, because of the natural division. I had never heard of the Harry Potter Alliance prior to this chapter, but I learned that it partners young people with political elites in order to open up a conversation about public policy. It's pretty cool, in my opinion, that a generation of kids who grew up reading Harry Potter and writing fanfiction, are now able to take the ideas that have been cultivated within the community and present them to people who have a say in the laws of our society. Literature has always been a way in which people provide commentary on their respective worlds. If we read literature of the past to learn about the past, perhaps there is validity in looking at the literature of the present to learn how people truly feel.

Toward the end of the chapter, the authors bring up the Kony 2012 debacle, and I was glad for this, because it highlights my argument from above-- it's great when people get involved in a cause, particularly youth, but please, please, know what you're talking about. Kony 2012 and Invisible Children brought the horrific reality of child abuse in Uganda to the public's attention, but that story got so twisted and misconstrued that people now mention the movement ironically, and joke about "#kony2012." That's not what anyone wants, and boyd comments:

On the one hand, it's exciting to see youth play a central role in a global media phenomenon-- and many youth who were a part of the Kony 2012 project felt seriously empowered. On the other, it's a bit troublesome to watch youth be used uncritically to amplify a message. (175)

I appreciated the work that boyd, Jenkins, and Ito put into this book, and I feel that they portrayed youth culture in a welcoming light, which is refreshing to see in the midst of all of the concerns about the next generation. There were certainly cases in which I did not agree with the ideals put forth, but overall I enjoyed the discussion throughout the chapters, and the format gave the book an easy, conversational flow. A lot was covered in a little over 200 pages, but I feel that it was covered comprehensively. Our new world and the participatory culture that it allows for is a powerful weapon, and I think we will continue to see this more and more as time goes on.

Delving deeper- Participatory Culture Chs. 4&5

Chapter 4 of Participatory Culture in a Networked Era is called "Learning and Literacy." Mimi Ito introduces this chapter by talking about how learning methods are changing. We no longer live in a society where the knowledge has to be put into kids' heads, instead, she argues that "the educational agenda should focus....on supporting contexts where kids could belong, participate, and contribute" (91). I found that I could relate to the examples given, especially the ones in which the subjects did not thrive under traditional math instruction in school, but were able to problem solve in a real-life situation. For this reason, I both liked and agreed with her question: "Why should we be sitting kids down in rows to learn math in the abstract when it is both more engaging and effective to learn it in the real word or through meaningful social activity?" (92). Kids have so many more advantages now than ever before, and ways in which they can learn new skills and techniques, and it would be great if education practices were to keep up.

I found the discussion regarding participatory learning environments interesting, but I wonder if it is too theoretical? It sounds to me as if the authors are proposing that the system needs to be revamped (which is likely true) but, as we have discussed in class, there is a lot to the system and so this is much easier said than done. I am interested to hear what my classmates who are teachers have to say on this topic because, while the concept of a participatory learning environment that "respects and values the contributions of each participant whether teacher, student, or someone from the outside community" (95) is a fantastic idea, but is it likely? The authors do acknowledge that teachers have a lot of responsibilities in their roles as is, but it still seems that this may be a very idealistic model that would have to be implemented in smaller ways.

One of the things that occurred to me whilst reading this section was the importance of learning how to filter information, and I think that is a skill that should certainly be refined. The example was given of Wikipedia being a bad source of information-- whereas this is not true! Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for knowledge, and yet it is still stigmatized as being bad. Wasn't it Reagan who said, "Trust, but verify"? Wikipedia isn't a bad start, and can lead to great sources, so why are students still avoiding it like the plague?

Another good point that was made in this chapter was the abundance of "junk food content" that is on the web. If Buzzfeed, for example, is the perception of the digital news world, we're in big trouble. Or, a few days ago one of the top stories on my Facebook news was regarding a picture of an actor eating corn in an odd way. Why? This is what gives digital media a bad name! However, perhaps it is wise to consider that the same can be said of many things-- the salacious is what sells. Gossip rags exist for a reason. The search for quality knowledge amidst the junk is key. The quality is there, but let's just say they put candy and gossip rags by the cash registers for a reason--- they know we can't resist.

Stepping back to the idea of Wikipedia, because the authors take some more time to focus on it later in the chapter, this site is an interesting form of a participatory community. If one was to go to any Wikipedia page, he or she could click back and view the edits made throughout the span on the page's existence. danah boyd cites the example of the American Revolution as being a true example of collaboration, in which American and British historians had to work together on a hotly debated event in history to come up with an unbiased account. It is the inherent nature of Wikipedia as participatory that makes it more trustworthy, not less.

The question of participatory culture and collaboration introduced into the school environment is an interesting one.  Among other things, the authors talk about fan fiction, and mention how people aren't quite sure if something like that should be welcome in schools. They have defended it as being a creative way in which people are able to write themselves into the stories they love, but does it have a place? If writing fan fiction is the most likely way to encourage certain students to write, would it be a valuable contribution?
Fan fiction also leads us into the topic of interest, and which interests should be valued. I think that they make a good case that, yes, interests are crucial because they are ways in which a teacher can connect to his or her students. In a lot of cases, traditional schooling isn't going to cut it. Some students are going to need more, and the access that we now have to the digital world may be a way in which teachers can learn to better connect with their students.

Chapter 5 is titled "Commercial Culture," which immediately reminds me of the advertising world that I live in every day at work. Society is attacked by our commercial culture every day, and from all directions. And, if you don't believe that-- what does the below splotch of ink represent?

I rest my case. 

But I found it interesting that, although it doesn't tend to occur to me, we are attacked in a similar way by the digital world and social media-- it's everywhere we turn, and to see that laid out before me was eye-opening. 

 It is for this reason that I found danah boy's introduction to be a fascinating walk-through of the growth and development of the digital world, from the early days to where we are today. It was also in this introduction that I learned the definition of a new term- Web 2.0, which is the name for current social media. Considering social media in the sense of it being a rebirth from the imagined purpose of the internet was enlightening, but Jenkins staunchly argues that to synonymize participatory culture with Web 2.0 would be incorrect, and that participatory culture did exist prior to Web 2.0. 

Web 2.0 did represent a fairly fundamental rethinking of how cultural production operates under capitalism, though it did not make producing culture more democratic in any absolute sense. It did broaden who could produce and share culture; it did invite some discourses about responsibility and accountability that have helped to fuel current struggles over corporate terms of service; it did offer a model of cultural and social participation that many found enticing when the terms were first introduced. But those of us who care about the values of participatory culture need to be deeply critical of that move to capture and commodify the public's participatory impulses. (126)

The Web 2.0 discussion linked it back to capitalism, and the desire to make money (isn't that what we all hope for?) based on capitalizing on the things people seek, enjoy, and want, but the topic also came up that people utilized these tools to create better opportunities.

I've mentioned my shame-laden love of MySpace and, because of that, I enjoyed the discussion of the site that popped up later in the chapter. MySpace is, apparently, a prime example of early Web 2.0 and "the perpetual beta," that is continually being updated and reworked. On that note, I had no idea that the ability the edit the HTML of one's MySpace profile was a fluke! However, that turned into a major thing that MySpace was known for-- and, on that note, part of the reason that I am doing the final project that I chose! By learning how to get around the rules, people became enabled!

There has been so much over the years that has gone into the digital world, including discussions of what is ethically owed to creators. This is something that is still hotly debated to this day because, at the end of the day, people are driven by some kind of payment system. People want credit, praise, money, or all of the above, for the things they have created. And where does the copywrite issue fall in the midst of this? Surely, creators have rights to the things they have made, but how is this to be handled in the new digital age? It is certainly harder to keep tabs on, although the effort is certainly made.

The final discussion on legal regulations and policies is one that I hope we get to talk about more in class. This is a sticky topic, because raise your hand if you like government control? ...Yeah, not many people are up for that. As boyd says:

All too often, new policies are introduced for political interest, and those who are making the decisions do not have an understanding of the ramifications of what they're putting forward. Laws are introduced before technical systems have stabilized and before the public has really engaged with the issues at play. As a result, we see all sorts of unintended consequences, and make regulatory moves intended to protect vulnerable populations backfire.

This argument, along with my personal beliefs regarding government intervention, make me highly suspicious of any attempt of governing the online world. More than anything, what comes to mind is the following image, which littered my Facebook profile for a decent period of time when it was the topic at hand:

I look forward to discussing this further in class, and seeing what everyone else has gleaned from this discussion.

Youth Cult(ure)

This week, I will be presenting on Chapters 2 and 3 of Participatory Culture in a Networked Era by Henry Jenkins, Mizuko Ito. and danah boyd, and the supplementary reading I have chosen is "Vlogging, Teens, and Literacy: Engaging Youth" by Antero Garcia. I'm excited to talk about these chapters because I feel that Jerkins, Ito, and boyd do an excellent job of analyzing the youth and presenting their culture in a way that is analytical and appreciative of the Digital Age.

Chapter 2 is titled "Youth Culture, Youth Practices," and opens with an introduction by boyd, who speaks to the rather taboo-like atmosphere that surrounds youth culture in the Digital Age. boyd addresses the aversion and confusion that many older adults, predominantly parents, face when considering the implications of the foreign technology that has such a huge impact on the lives of the modern child. What I liked about the introduction however, is that boyd tied the modern fears to fears that once were relevant in the past, exemplified especially in the following quote: "Whether comic books were morally corruptive or video games made kids violent mattered less than the ability to drive fear through the heart of parents by suggesting that any new media would ruin their children" (32). boyd closes her introduction by explaining the collective goal for her, Jenkins', and Ito's work: "We are defenders of and advocated for youth, but many adults do not believe that youth are anything but innocent and vulnerable children" (35). This sounds about right to me. In the midst of us shaking our fists and exclaiming "Those darn kids," it's important to step back and see the bigger picture.

The writers widely found that the internet was widely colonized by the kids who were the "freaks, geeks and queers" (34), those who didn't quite fit in with their peers. They were the ones who stood out, who had interests outside of those that were popularly accepted. Some of these kids were the victims of bullying, but many had one thing in common, they turned to the online world to find community. This is something awesome that the Digital Age has offered, and the writer's give it the credit that it is due. Young people were able to go home and log on, and suddenly were about "to find others who share their interests without the constraints of geographic location" (38).

They talk in depth about the concerns that many parents have about the online world- the fact that age is not necessarily a factor in communication, that the ability to stay on top of everything kids are doing is lessened, and visibility is heightened-- by this, they explain, "that youth can be exposed to new ideas and new people, not just in the abstract, but through direct interaction. Some see this as a good thing, but plenty of parents do not want their children to be exposed to or interact with children who aren't raised in the same way" (41). This leads into my first discussion question: Is this a valid concern? In what new ways must parents now be aware of their kids, and how are they able to monitor?

Additionally, on the topic of visibility, the concern of cyber bulling naturally arises, however the writers cite research from 2012 which found that "studies regularly show that no increase or decrease in bullying is associated with the internet" (qtd. in 44). By turning off the computer, one is not decreasing the chance o cyber bullying, they are merely reducing its visibility.

The writers go to introduce the terms "native" and "immigrant" in terms of the Digital Age, and make interesting cases for these terms not truly conveying what they seem to convey. Society tends to hail the youth as being the digital "natives," they ones who have a better handle on the technology, and the older generations as the digital "immigrants," who are new and who flounder around leaving embarrassing comments on their children's Facebook statuses. However, the case is made that these terms are inappropriate. Historically, boyd points out, the natives aren't usually the ones who are hailed...they're the ones who become enslaved by the colonizer. And Jenkins further makes the case that we would never say to an immigrant, "You will never truly belong here." These are loaded terms, and I thought that a lot of work went into debunking them as valid categories.

Following this, the writers make a case for the digital world belonging to those who wish to utilize its power. They argue against the adults who bow out of participation via the "I was born in the wrong generation" or the "I can't use this, so you shouldn't either" approaches. Jenkins makes a strong argument against this by making the point that

Senior citizens form one of the groups that moved most aggressively into a networked culture; they have used the internet in innovative ways that support their own needs and lifestyles...to trade pictures, to have more regular contact with their grandchildren, to escape the social isolation of being housebound. They also play online games and buy more music online than young people do. (49)

 The internet isn't safe. Then again, neither is the world. If you go wandering around in a bad area, you're likely to end up in trouble, and the same is true online. However, Jenkins, Ito, and boyd argue that it's worth the risk, and it's worth the lesson. It's impossible to protect the youth from everything, and the digital world has so much to offer in terms of learning opportunities, and in interacting with all types of people. One of the most compelling points they make to this end is as follows: "Even when there are teens who are exhibitionists or engaging in risky behaviors, they're not representative of the whole cohort" (57). Well said!

The digital world certainly is different from the world that came before it. However, it is a grave mistake to dismiss it as silly, unsafe, or "just for the kids." To understand why today's youth like the transiency of Snapchat, or the brevity of Twitter, the best thing one can do is immerse themselves in it, and learn to understand the key difference between participating in public and being public.

Moving on to Chapter 3, "Gaps and Genres in Participation"! This chapter still sticks with the theme of youth, but focuses on the experiences that youth from different backgrounds have in the digital world. This chapter begins with an introduction by Mimi Ito, who introduces the term "genre" as a way to describe media genres and genres of participation in a community. She does this in order to set up three genres of participation in the online behavior of youth: hanging out, messing around, and geeking out

Hanging out is defined as what the vast majority of kids do online. It is friendship driven and motivated by a social connection with one's peers. Messing around is defined as kids exploring tools and techniques that are available online, to see which hold their interest. Some of the kids who participate in "messing around" will move on to the next step, "geeking out." Those who geek out what they have learned through messing around as a jumping off point to finding new interests. These kids are:

The fans, gamers, geeks, activists, and creative kids. these kids were driven toward specialized knowledge and getting good at something. They often get held up as poster children for the promise of the digital generation, but in reality they were a small minority compared to kids who were hanging out. (64).

The writers then enter into a conversation about the digital divide and the participation gap, and Jenkins posits that "However successful Americans have been at increasing access to the technologies, we have not made as much ground in providing equal opportunities for participation in the kinds of communities and practices being discussed here" (68). This was the entry point into a very interesting conversation regarding race in the Digital Age. Research cited by Ito explains that:

Black and Latino youth tend to lead in engagement with popular media like television and also digital media like video games...[they are] adopting and engaging at higher rates than their white and Asian counterparts....we can't pretend that access to digital technology is synonymous with access to elite power. (70)

I found their example of the Danger Sidekick of the mid-2000s to be a particularly interesting example of this point. According to boyd, the Sidekick was launched by T-Mobile, a carrier that targeted urban youth, and the youth responded in droves. Prior to any smart phone, the Sidekick was used for AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) and, according to boyd, became responsible for 1/3 of AIM's traffic. That's huge!

The topic of "connected consumption" also tied back into this theme. Connected consumption includes studies of how communities share resources though peer-to-peer markets, and maker spaces and hacker spaces are offered of examples of these. These spaces are community-run places in which people have the tools and guidance they need in order to create things, and connect with mentors. I especially liked the example of Jeff Sturges in Detroit. I looked up his website, it is now no longer in operation, but there is an active Facebook page. Knowledge should be accessible to everyone, and these spaces are a huge asset.

The chapter concluded with a discussion on the issue of invisible barriers of participation and, to be perfectly honest, this is where I thought that well defined points got a little dicey. The issue of class shaping taste was brought up in conjunction with the 2009 #racefail debate regarding the low number of people of color attending fan conventions. I think this is an interesting thing to consider, and the writers certainly draw attention to it being a concern, however I don't know that this is something that is easily surmounted because it's an issue of background. As one possible example, they suggest that:

People raised in different economic or racial/ethnic communities may have different degrees of access to cultural materials or practices. They may be encouraged to define or discouraged from defining their identities in certain ways, may be more or less likely to express certain fantasies or desires, and thus are going to be more or less likely to enter specific communities of practice. (81) 

If something is or isn't culturally something you might care about, or something you might be expected to care about, that will certainly dictate your participation in events concerning it.

And, in terms of gaps in interest, no matter how interesting "nerd culture" may be, not everyone is going to be into it. So that's a gap that I don't see closing, kids are always going to have different interests.

Geek and nerd culture is complicated because, while it is tied to academic and technological privilege, it doesn't have high status in youth culture, where interests like music or athletics are more dominant...The kids who do engage deeply in civic, creative, or academic interests and who form close bonds with teachers and other adult experts often get marginalized as the nerds, geeks, creative freaks.... (83)

And so, this leads me into my second discussion question: Do you think that the invisible barriers are things that can be surmounted? Can this appreciation be taught, or does it need to come independently?

Finally, moving on to my supplemental article,"Vlogging, Teens, and Literacy: Engaging Youth" by Antero Garcia, this ties in because the vlogger culture is a huge part of current youth culture. Most big-name YouTubers, and many who hope to build a name for themselves, make videos of themselves talking to the camera, on any number of topics. Off the top of my head I can think of ctfxc, who has made a vlog documenting his life every single day of the past 7+ years and has a Guinness World Record to prove it, Michelle Phan, whose beauty empire grew from makeup tutorials,  PewDiePie, whose gaming channel grew to be the most popular channel on YouTube, and so many more.

Of vlogging, Garcia makes two key points to start: 1) One size does NOT fit all, and 2) Vlogging is an ephemeral act.
The first of these means that different vlogs work for different personalities and different scenarios. You have to find the type that works for you. Secondly, vloggers have their fingers on the pulse of what is going on in culture. If they don't constantly update their content, they will get left in the dust. There's a long list of YouTubers who are has-beens for this exact reason.

The idea that our literacies are expanding stuck me as being remarkably true, especially when you consider all the new ways in which media is shared. Emojis can be used in place of words to convey emotion, some of the most popular videos on the internet are 7 second Snapchats and Vines, entertainment culture is shifting drastically. As Garcia says, "Youth don't want my MTV." It's here that I want to introduce my third and final discussion question: What are the implications of vlogging on the Entertainment industry?

I thought it was pretty perfect how Garcia references Henry Jenkin's idea of participatory culture within his article, and I think this fits in perfectly with what I discussed earlier regarding youth culture. Vlogging is a huge part of youth culture, most YouTubers will admit that their fans are their "bosses" (so to speak), because the viewers and their participation matters. Feedback is crucial, comments and likes are what make all the difference. Without participation, vloggers do not have a job.

Although the mediums have changed, it's really interesting to see what people find interesting in the changing world, and how this impacts our values and fears as a culture. I look forward to discussing this with all of you in class tomorrow!