In her dissertation (oh my, is 400 pages what I have to look forward to?), Boyd addresses the “networked publics” specifically in teenagers use of social networks. Chapter 4 looks at how identity is created, and managed, on social sites. She references several examples of teenagers’ profiles on Myspace. She talks about the “first generation to publicly articulate itself, to have to write itself into being as a precondition of social participation.” Referring to Foucault, whom we are familiar with from this class, the identities created on social networks are subject to “self-monitoring.”
And despite “all that is reveled [in profiles], there is much more that is not.” I can see her point here. Looking through my own Facebook friend’s profiles, I don’t see too many ‘strong opinions’ expressed. People are pretty moderate and not likely to put anything up that is likely to be offensive. That might reflect who my own friends are, although some of them I do know to have very strong, maybe “radical” opinions. No, I think for the most part people are just not usually looking to get in a large debate or argument about controversial topics in the Facebook format. That could be based on what people my age use social networks for, which is mainly keeping up with friends.
I reference Facebook because that is what most people I know use, as opposed to Myspace which I do not use because I know very few people who do. Membership on sites is largely based on the real world, which Boyd did address in her paper, and she also pointed out that profile information is largely based in the physical space also. So Facebook started in 2004, and by spring 2005 as I was gearing up for college, many of my friends were joining because that was a good way to keep in touch as we all went off to different schools. In the physical space, we were going to be separated, so to keep in touch we created profiles in the internet space.
I wish I had taken a snapshot of my ‘first’ profile, just to see how I organized it back then compared to now. I remember I use to list every movie and band I liked, creating these long long lists that I don’t know who would bother to read. I don’t know one single reason why I did this. Partially out of indecisiveness on what a single favorite or short list would be because I do have varied interests. Part of me probably hoped out of such a long list that most people would see something in common with me. Now I don’t think about the majority so much when I share a link or write a note. My links and notes are pretty specific to a smaller circle of friends who I know will enjoy it or comment, like when I want to share an amazing video. Every once in a while I post something with the intention that it could help a cause and I hope that many people check it out - like posting about PAC-We, or freerice.com, or promoting a friend's band.
There are elements of identity that Facebook doesn’t ask, I’m sure out of fear of backlash and lawsuits. They don’t ask race, for instance. Very few of the answers to the elements on your profile are limited to a few choices, which I think most people appreciate. Like in Political Views, it is blank so that you can refer to yourself as anything, like: (these are real examples) “Bipolar moderate.” “I think what I want,” “Screw parties, unless they have games,” “Revolutionary republicanism, abuse of power comes as no surprise.” In a way, not limiting choices to Democrat/Republican/Libertarian suggests that people are aware that those are not the only ideas about politics. It allows the user to be really specific about their ideas At the same time, it allows people to be silly or to try to show they nonconformity to an ideology.
I have around 300 “friends” on Facebook, a fraction of which I converse with regularly in the Facebook medium, and even fewer I probably see on a regular basis. I could go and delete those I really never talk to, but there is a part of me who wants to keep the option of going to view their profile and see what they’re up to. I don’t think I’m the only one who thinks like that, or things like TMZ wouldn’t exist. What is that about human nature that we like to pry into others lives? Right after the chapter on creating and managing identity in social network profiles, I really wanted a whole sub-chapter about how people look at other’s profiles. Call it “Spying in the Social Network Sphere.”
Showing posts with label new media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new media. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
From Habermas’ “Public Sphere” to DeLuca & Peeple’s “Public Screen”
In this shortened version of Habermas’ outlining of public sphere, we get a definition of the concept public sphere as: “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed.” The concept is that in a public sphere, people assemble together as one acting public body, leading to public reason which contrasts to the governing state body. It is essentially organized discussion, creating public consensus which then can in turn influences political action. Habermas also argues that with the historical change from a feudal constitutional society the public sphere was able to come about and as it did, public broadcast media like newspapers played a vital role.
Historically, public sphere is associated with the “coffeehouse discussions” where you see groups assembling for debate and discussion. It was open, disregarded status, and based on rational thought with a goal of reaching consensus. Although on the surface the sphere is understood as open and free to anyone, of course it wasn’t like modern society. The sphere was free to white educated middle class males as far as my understanding goes. But that aside, the public sphere is still where the people have the position to influence action and influence the governing bodies. Other important historical events that you see as the public sphere emerges is the growing idea of a separation of church and state, which arguably only came about after the Reformation and the idea of a person having an individual and direct relationship with God, taking away much of the power of the Church.
The public sphere has and is continually changing. It was once about a physical space that could be occupied, now there are fewer coffeehouse meetings. Media was once just a source of information, but as the capitalistic society grew, the more the media realized it’s value as another capital-making system through advertisement and news-managing. If you follow along the arguments of intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, the broadcast medias [newspapers, news stations] are purely a medium of “manufacturing consent.” They exhibit the news in the interests of their monetary-backbone, the corporations who own them. In our society, the majority of media is controlled by a few companies, and their interests correlate with the products of their medias.
In my past studies, I came across this concept of public sphere through “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the Lessons of Seattle” (2002) by DeLuca and Peeples, which looks at the transitioning of the concept of public sphere with the onset of new media. They use the common definition of public sphere as an open, public, physical space where public opinion is formed. The transition is that public opinion is formed out of a new, pseudo-physical “public screen.” They talk about how the way information is shared nowadays, that you can’t really distinguish between public and private spheres. The separation between public and private is slimmer because of the mobility of our technology, as you can carry the “screens” with you. This new way of information transfer is based around the inception of new media.
One of the other points to DeLuca and Peeple’s argument, is that events can be staged for the screen, as another way of manufacturing consent, or just drawing attention to something. “Image Events” can be very persuasive, cause the public to empathize with an event, or make them hardened against a subject (like violence). Image events exist to ask the public to watch and to see their point of view. And the audience isn’t just an objective public observer, but they are immersed in the images and thus will form an opinion of the situation. DeLuca and Peeples talk about the 1999 WTO protest and riots in Seattle in their article. The media predominantly showed images of violence instead of debate and delegation, which does grab the attention of the viewers, so whether that’s good or bad, it is successful in getting viewership. Not as much information was given to the public as the event happened so any kind of hope for public consensus is lost.
The contributions of new media to the public sphere are varied. For one thing, “screens” are widely available, and can lead to instantaneous social action. Social movement can happen much more rapidly than ever, and be more widespread. There is also some difficulty in getting social action to spread, like for instance when the topic of action is against established structures which people are hesitant to change. New media doesn’t work face-to-face, it does not necessarily occupy a physical space like the public sphere did. With the screen you don’t have to necessarily plan or produce flyers or anything tangible. There are less limits on who can be a member of the public screen - basically anyone with a screen. And anyone can be both a sender and a receiver. This can be seen in the alternate reality game “World Without Oil" where the spectators were also producers.
Do these differences lead to more consensus? Hard to say. The principles of how people come to a consensus don’t necessarily change with new media, however it does lead to more shared information, and increased availability of information. When working at it’s full potential, the screen works like the media used to work, as an information sharing medium. There is still a danger that the screens can become what old forms of broadcast media have, and there can still be bias in the information, and still some consent manufacturing. The ability to be more free though, is still there, and that is a positive difference.
Historically, public sphere is associated with the “coffeehouse discussions” where you see groups assembling for debate and discussion. It was open, disregarded status, and based on rational thought with a goal of reaching consensus. Although on the surface the sphere is understood as open and free to anyone, of course it wasn’t like modern society. The sphere was free to white educated middle class males as far as my understanding goes. But that aside, the public sphere is still where the people have the position to influence action and influence the governing bodies. Other important historical events that you see as the public sphere emerges is the growing idea of a separation of church and state, which arguably only came about after the Reformation and the idea of a person having an individual and direct relationship with God, taking away much of the power of the Church.
The public sphere has and is continually changing. It was once about a physical space that could be occupied, now there are fewer coffeehouse meetings. Media was once just a source of information, but as the capitalistic society grew, the more the media realized it’s value as another capital-making system through advertisement and news-managing. If you follow along the arguments of intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, the broadcast medias [newspapers, news stations] are purely a medium of “manufacturing consent.” They exhibit the news in the interests of their monetary-backbone, the corporations who own them. In our society, the majority of media is controlled by a few companies, and their interests correlate with the products of their medias.
In my past studies, I came across this concept of public sphere through “From Public Sphere to Public Screen: Democracy, Activism, and the Lessons of Seattle” (2002) by DeLuca and Peeples, which looks at the transitioning of the concept of public sphere with the onset of new media. They use the common definition of public sphere as an open, public, physical space where public opinion is formed. The transition is that public opinion is formed out of a new, pseudo-physical “public screen.” They talk about how the way information is shared nowadays, that you can’t really distinguish between public and private spheres. The separation between public and private is slimmer because of the mobility of our technology, as you can carry the “screens” with you. This new way of information transfer is based around the inception of new media.
One of the other points to DeLuca and Peeple’s argument, is that events can be staged for the screen, as another way of manufacturing consent, or just drawing attention to something. “Image Events” can be very persuasive, cause the public to empathize with an event, or make them hardened against a subject (like violence). Image events exist to ask the public to watch and to see their point of view. And the audience isn’t just an objective public observer, but they are immersed in the images and thus will form an opinion of the situation. DeLuca and Peeples talk about the 1999 WTO protest and riots in Seattle in their article. The media predominantly showed images of violence instead of debate and delegation, which does grab the attention of the viewers, so whether that’s good or bad, it is successful in getting viewership. Not as much information was given to the public as the event happened so any kind of hope for public consensus is lost.
The contributions of new media to the public sphere are varied. For one thing, “screens” are widely available, and can lead to instantaneous social action. Social movement can happen much more rapidly than ever, and be more widespread. There is also some difficulty in getting social action to spread, like for instance when the topic of action is against established structures which people are hesitant to change. New media doesn’t work face-to-face, it does not necessarily occupy a physical space like the public sphere did. With the screen you don’t have to necessarily plan or produce flyers or anything tangible. There are less limits on who can be a member of the public screen - basically anyone with a screen. And anyone can be both a sender and a receiver. This can be seen in the alternate reality game “World Without Oil" where the spectators were also producers.
Do these differences lead to more consensus? Hard to say. The principles of how people come to a consensus don’t necessarily change with new media, however it does lead to more shared information, and increased availability of information. When working at it’s full potential, the screen works like the media used to work, as an information sharing medium. There is still a danger that the screens can become what old forms of broadcast media have, and there can still be bias in the information, and still some consent manufacturing. The ability to be more free though, is still there, and that is a positive difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
