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!
No comments:
Post a Comment