Week 2: Participatory Culture 101 July 29, 2008
Posted by Tama in Seminar.trackback
Your core readings for this seminar are:
[X] Henry Jenkins, "Interactive Audiences?: The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans" in Dan Harries (ed.), The New Media Book, (London: British Film Institute, 2002), pp. 157-170.
[X] Tim O’Reilly. ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software’, O’Reilly Network, 30 September 2005.
[X] J.D. Lasica, "Darknet mini-book: Introduction", "’Darknet’ foreword" (by Howard Rhinegold), and "The teenage filmmakers" in Darknet: Hollywood’s War against the Digital Generation. John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
The article by Henry Jenkins looks at interactivity and audience agency, giving a sense of where culture has been in terms of participation and ownership, and then looks to how culture is shifting facilitated, in part, by digital communication. Tim O’Reilly’s article famously introduces the idea of ‘Web 2.0’ which has widely been adopted to describe the shift toward online cultures built for and by users. Finally, the excerpts from J.D. Lasica’s Darknet look at what immediate changes and battles are happening in the Western cultural context due to immediate challenges made by digital communication and interaction tools.
While this seminar is meant as a general overview, keep these questions in mind when doing you reading:
[1] Is participatory culture a brand new idea, or does is have historical precedents?
[2] How are the terms ‘ownership’, ‘community’ and ‘culture’ actually used in these readings (and are these stable terms, or do they mean something different for each author)?
[3] How is the shorthand ‘web 2.0’ deployed by O’Reilly and how accurate do you think it is?
[4] How open and accessible is cultural production in the twenty-first century? What are the trends, and where do you think things are headed?
(Remember, after our face to face conversation in the seminar, your thoughts and reflections on the topic should be posted as a comment on this post.)
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Phew! I’ve finally found the page! It was a little difficult to find the right links to reach here. Hmm…I thought I saw a comment by Remfel. But somehow, I can’t seem to go back there anymore.
In any case, I’d suppose we’d have to read through the required readings BEFORE the seminar and not AFTER right?
Oops…sorry. ‘twisterx’ would be me, Alvin. Hadn’t adjusted the profiles before posting. Apologies.
Hi Alvin. Indeed, yes, the readings should be done before the seminar, so they can be discussed in the seminar!
lol we need to discuss things first alvin during our tuesday’s class then we can post our brilliant ideas here!!!!! see ya!
yes, reading helps us to discuss smartly in the class. show your special ideas. well done everyone
Ｈｉ ｇｕｙｓ，Ｉ ｌｉｋｅ ｔｈｉｓ ｃｏｕｒｓｅ ｓｏ ｍｕｃｈ！Ｙｏｕ ｇｕｙｓ ｇｉｖｅ ｍｅ ｔｈｅ ｃｏｕｒａｇｅ ｔｏ ｐａｒｔｉｃｉｐａｔｅ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ！Ｔｈａｎｋ ｙｏｕ ａｌｌ！
hi guys! i would like to share this to you before comments start to pop-up regarding our face-to-face discussion. I have found on yahoo.com.au about the STAR WARS TRILOGY that was discussed and read in our reference from DARKNET. Here is the link hope you will find it interesting as we can connect it with last meeting’s discussion……..
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/entertainment/4854767/star-wars-tv-sydney
Hi! Yanm the reason why you enjoyed the class because there is so much interaction with different ideas and that is the purpose why we study the culture of media participation. Based on the given readings,the article written by Henry Jinkens about Interactive Audiences,actually gives us three insights on how the new participatory culture is taken shape. One of these is the “ECONOMIC” trends favoring the integrated media “CONGLOMERATES” or in layman’s term the big media outlets we all know about. The reason why an economic trend is mentioned is because media is also centered on “PROFITS” the media conglomerates are cashing on how its spectators actively participate and are always encourage to chip in ideas a good example is how a big brother winner is chosen or who could be the next Australian idol?
Hi everyone, I would like to say something about the ‘Participatory Culture’ and the ‘Web’. Obviously, in light of the ‘Participatory Culture’, it has the definite relationship with the internet nowadays. In my view, on one hand, the web provides the soil and nutrition for the ‘Participatory Culture’; on the other hand, the users have boosted the development of the new technologies of the network. But I am thinking that maybe it is easier to predict the future for the technologies, eg, professional engineers in the IT area; but how can we dominate the developing course of the ‘participatory culture’? Need the help from you guys!
Yan,
Well, it seems there are already IT Engineers around (though I’m not exactly sure what they do). I guess they are involved in the development of web content/software.
Hmm…about dominating the developing course of ‘participatory culture’, I’m not sure I’m getting you correctly? You’re saying that you’d like to ‘dominate’ the development? Why would you like to do that? I mean…it would seem that the evolution of ‘participatory culture’ would come as a natural process. And the principles of ‘participatory culture’ (as I’d understand it) would mean that no single entity can gain total control of it’s course.
Alvin,
Well, Thank you for your nice commments ..Hmm, In the reading written by Herry Jenkins,It said ” As early participants spread news about emergent fandoms, supporters quickly develop the guides, providing regular production updates, and creating orginal fan stories and artwork”, as i understand , maybe it should has someone can lead a new trend in some parts of participatory culture？I mean it is like that someone need to try new technologies first then it can organize a community maye ?
Cheers
let us put in mind that a true participatory culture only exists on a “DEMOCRACY” and a “CAPITALIST” world…. if we are going to connect it guys with the readings from COMM2202 about Schwartz-Cowan’s (1985) ‘How the Refrigerator Got Its Hum’ and even Dyer’s ‘Making ‘White’ People White’. It was the Engineers who developed the technologies with huge financial support from the big names to cater to the needs of people and mainly for PROFITS. It is the same with the media nowadays wherein we are partly the modern engineers, as the media is using its spectators to help develop the technology through collective intelligence that is very true to the internet and some tv programs.
I think the issue that ramfelsean raises of economics is an important one when we think about participatory culture, and something we touched upon briefly in our discussion yesterday. When we factor in the economic component into the picture the boundaries are blurred between citizens and consumers. To me, participatory culture suggests independent, critical citizen, yet the role of consumerism should not be underestimated. This might be another example of the ‘cynical’ [or even sinister?] participatary culture. Thoughts anyone?
Hi guys,
Since we talk about Participatory Culture, I have an optimistic view about it. I think participatory culture will give the audiences or the consumer a larger opportunity to involve in media (or even in cultural) production. It also “reduce” the power of media conglomerates to dictate what people should watch and should think about. However, we still have another issue to consider, that is copyright policy, because this policy can always used by media owner as a tool to restrict people’s creativity.
On the other hand, I’m still interesting about our discussion about whether social network (facebook, myspace, ect) is the form of participatory culture that Jenkins talk about. I want to know what your opinion guys…?
Firstly, Yan, I agree with you that someone must start trying out new things. Others will usually follow suit. Well, as a matter of fact, many small fragments form a large picture (as in the workings of ‘participatory culture’). But I’m not too sure what this ‘final picture’ will be (with all the differing opinions from members), if at all.
Anaw77, Remfel, well, almost (if not all) things revolve around money. Be it the traditional ‘fandom’ or modern day discussion boards, capital is required to sustain the basic infrastructure of ‘participatory culture’ (i.e. materials such as mails, letters, computer servers, etc). So, I’d guess ‘consumerism’ enables the occurence of active citizentry.
Rouli, while I see your point and agree (to a certain extent) that participatory culture may shape media content, there seems to be a limit about what it can really effect. Media companies are still more or less deciding what the average layperson watches on tv (i.e. say, a producer is deciding which project to commence on, he/she would decide based on factors that he/she perceives to be impt). By that, it also ‘ties-in’ with Remfel and Annaw77’s take on consumerism and $$. I mean, unless the media company decides to ‘produce’ Big Brother or So You Think You Can Dance, the people currently discussing about the shows probably won’t be doing so.
Retrospectively, I realised that when American Idol came onstage, people discussed about American Idol. When Australian Idol came onstage, people discussed about it. But before those programmes were constructed, people din really think or actively discuss about who’d be the best dancer. In short, the topics of discussion (at least in terms of tv realm) seems to still be led/chosen by the media companies’ decision on the types of programmes to be aired.
I could be biased or mis-guided. Any inputs?
For me I think that ‘Participatory Culture’ is a form of contribution that the masses could bring to a given enviornment or on a plaform. Therefore I tend to agree with what Rouli had said about being optimistic and that this particular culture is able to source for more input from the audience which engages it.
No doubt certain organisations or parties who has an element of interest in the industry will place restrictions or set boundaries on the kind of contents the media could display or transmit but people still has a say over what is being transmitted or the media.
Personally, I think the kind of social network like facebook & myspace could be a type of participatory culture which was mentioned by Jenkins. This is because as long as anyone chose to logon to the plaform where all the discussions or social exchange is being carried out, one could affect or influence the others actions or thoughts. In fact just like this blog which each of us has an access to, we could contribute and give comments and check for comments from the others.
What do the others think?
lol alvin just to break the ice american idols sing it’s the “you think you can dance show” where they obviously dance! anyway this post is just for fun alvin!!!!!!! heheheheheheehhh it means i read your post pretty well!
Haha… Remfel… you’re sharp…!
Alvin, sorry if I miss your point, but what I can get from your comment is that media still have a power and strong influences to determine what audiences talk and think about, and participatory culture will not do much about that. You said, “If TV presenting American Idol, so the audiences will talk about American Idol”.
Of course media will still be there to do their job (i.e. playing their role) to entertain, inform, and (sometime) educate audiences. But the main different is that the audiences are no longer passive audiences who only receive whatever media give them. They can give influences to media production and distribution. They can comment, discuss, criticise, or if the voice of the audiences strong enough, they can even determine the media content in the future. Or, at least, they can make their own version in the web (see the example of Babylon 5, Dawson Creek and Xena in Jenkins article).
But other main point to consider, this condition maybe will not happen immediately and simultaneously to all audiences. But, participatory culture (with technological support) opens the possibility to more active and engage audiences.
As far as economy concern, I think participatory culture have two possibility. It can give benefit to media company or media owner to gain more profit, if they can facilitate and use audiences’ contribution to enrich their product. They even can use fan network as an important medium of promotion.
On the other hand, media company no longer have absolute control to media product as commodity, since audiences can use it, shape it and recycle it for their own version (but still consider copyright issue).
But for me personally, I see that as a power share in the market. Just like Jenkins quote; “Marketing in interactive world is a collaborative process, with marketer helping the consumer to buy and consumer helping marketer to sell”.
So my main point is, power is no longer in the hand of small group owner (or capitalist, if you like). Participatory culture opens the possibility to share the power between consumer and producer.
My opinion, of course, still open for debate and discussion. So, looking forward for your comment guys….
I strongly agree with Rouli. yes indeed, the participatory culture sets up a tie between consumer and producer. Therefore the point of my view is that all the participants could easily play in different roles in this Participatory culture, so it can be viewed as the new idea was helped to develop the Web 2.0. Web 2.0 harness this wisdom called ” collective Intelligence”
In O’Reilly Network, it said that Hyperlinking is the foundation of the web. As all the users add new content, and new sites, it is bound in to the structure of the web by other users discovering the content and linking to it.
So in my opinion, this creavitity idea creats a new E-era” strong interactivity”
I am so proud of you guys write so well… Well done, friends. So I think I need practice my writing as more as possible… Anyway, I agree with Rouli’s opinion, the audiences are not dull any more, however, their interactive communication have promote a new culture’s emergence, ‘Participatory culture’. After I done some readings, I suppose that the ‘Participatory culture’ may has some obvious characteristics, one is, it is a kind of ‘multi-culture’, it breaks the geographic constraints and languages on communication in different groups, (eg, we are all using Igeneration blogs to exchange our knowledge as a community even we have different nationalities); Secondly, the ‘Participatory culture’ can be considered as a kind of ‘Achievements’, the precondition is that “where members believe that their contribution matter” as Henry said. Yet, the achievements may be seen from the development new technologies, such as Web 2.0’s appearance, O’Reilly has said that ‘Users must be treated as co-developers’, the more consumers take part in the media ,the more advanced software be produced. So, we are the contributors for our society in some parts, like for the ‘Participatory Culture’….Thank you!
Wow! you guys are really good. You reacted so fast. Do you stay online all the time?
Anyway, with new technologies, the internet and Web 2.0 there are much activites going on in the virtual world. Also a point to note is that the communication does not just go from point A to B. It could happen concurrently and is linked from various sources forming a ‘rhizome’.
Also the point which Alvin had made about the producers deciding what the audience talk about or think about. To a certain extent it is true. But before making the programs or shows, it would be wise for the producers to do some research or survey on the type of shows or programs which will be most popular. So in that process, a certain degree of decision making still comes from the public or masses.
Therefore it could be said that some audience or the larger public decides what the rest of the audience gets to watch or talk about.
Does that make sense? Please response.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
hi tang! its all about the money! if you happen to remember the movie jerry maguire by tom cruise years back i think it was cuba gooding jr. who said ” show me the money!” that is what these reality shows are all about, the profits that the producers and media networks want to earn. who wants to make a show that they know will not give them profits to earn, partly they do surveys and is also a gamble on their part. based on my logical observation we are bombarded by reality shows on tv at the moment coz these are the shows that people love to watch coz they can participate on its outcome. honestly, i am fed-up with these reality shows so ill just stick with the blogs that i constantly participate one of which is a beauty pageant site! care to join me and be a beauty consultant? lol
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.
Higuys,
I am really enjoying discussing with all of you. it is a good way which We can know and unerstand eath otherabout participatory culture. When I read Tang and Alvin comments, but I am not agree with you guys. I think the producers do not make a strong possible that determines the audiences’ opinions to some extent, however, sometimes producers would be likely to cater for audiencs taste.
Because many producers have argued that the audience area needed developing-they wanted to try and understand how audiences actually do interact with the media and considerable work has been done in this situation. To some extent producers just guess the audiences favorites and harness those approaches to make audiences enjoy in the media.
otherwise, audiences have their own cognition, in their world, they have ability to make sure what is right or wrong.
In addition, in new media we always know that the producer could be his own audience or an audience could be his own producer.
I am very interest in thinking about Web 2.0 development, does you guys like web 2.0 or not? haha, In fact, everyday we all have meet Web 2.0 in the internet. Web 2.0 can be seen as a set of principles and practice. it has some difference from Web 1.0.
And do you guys think that web 2.0 can offer to a huge sources than web 1.0? and does web 2.0 make more profits in business than web 1.0? And what is the furture of web 2.0.
And you guys always say, oh nono no, sometimes, i do not believe web, because the imformation is wrong, but do you think thatyou guys are the main fans of web 2.0?
thank you every one
I think there’s a misconception about media ‘then’ and ‘now’. Rouli made the point that “the main different is that the audiences are no longer passive audiences who only receive whatever media give them.” I think that the old ‘hypodermic needle’ approach that suggests viewers are passive is a misguided one. Rather, viewers have always been active and critical consumers of media. While the format may have changed, and the role that viewers play may have also changed, nevertheless, we cannot argue that they were once passive and are now active.
One clarification before I give my comments.
Previously Alvin’s stand is that the producers decide what programs or topics the audiences engage in. Whereas I think that the producers do seek audiences preferances for the type of shows (or reality TV) on air nowadays.
Subsequently, Ramfel responded with the comments that she had enough of those reality TV programs and prefered blogging.
Therefore, I do agree with Ramfel’s point that it’s all about the money. Because TV and entertainment is not about charity (on which the industry would not survive). On the other hand I would not turn to blogging as I still prefers the traditional way of info exchange like magazines or newspapers. I also surf youtube websites more often than others. As for becoming a consultant (interesting thought), I still have a long way to go.
For Web 2.0, it is a progressive development which cannot be slowed down. In fact it is a new platform on which new developments form. Blogging is one of the examples cited in the O’Reilly’s reading. One comment which I read states that some people maybe even on level 8 now!
To answer Siyang’s question as to whether web 2.0 is able to offer more than web 1.0, my personal observation is not sure. The reason is, it maybe just a different packaging. The former way of doing things are just replaced by ‘more advanced’ ones. For example, DoubleClick changing to Google AdSense and having Wikipedia instead of Britannica Online,etc.
As for more profits in Business my answer would be a positive one because people are attracted to newer more advance stuff. It also offers more options than the older version of web 1.0. Therefore the future is bright before someone else comes up with a more advance version or better platform.Thank you!
See you all at the next seminar.
Well… it may be seen that producers do seek audience preference wrt the type of shows. But I’m just cynical that.. well, it could also be that if a show happens to coincide with audience preferences, producers say ’see! I heard you!’. If it does not, then ‘well, we have to cater to audiences of various tastes!’ On an additional point, if one realises, the ‘people’s voting’ phrase (for reality tv or talent shows) comes after the ‘in-house’ judges selects the ‘top 50′ or ‘top 20′, etc. I mean, the choices are already ‘pre-selected’. Audiences choose from the pre-selected ones.
While participatory culture these days do have an extend of influence (more so in terms of the potential revenue-generating aspects rather than participatory culture per se), I still feel that the influence is limited to certain areas of society. I mean, for example, (i’m assuming) majority would want lesser taxes, more welfare and benefits, but that cannot necessarily happen just because people participate strongly in a national discussion that advocates the same.
Anna, thanks for that good critical point.
I always agree with the opinion that audiences are always active (in some extent). We can also see that from the finding in audience research. There is the change from the “Hypodermic Needle” to “Limited Effect Theory” from Lazarfeld until the “Uses and Gratification Theory”, that said people actively use media to gratify their need. (but, I think, we have to be careful to say that ‘hypodermic needle’ is misguided, since it’s only one point of view to see media impact. In fact, I think, it is one of the basic assumptions in Frankfurt School)
Maybe one thing that wasn’t clear in my previous comment is the term “active” and “passive”. What I mean with active and passive is not only in media consumption, but also in media production and distribution.
Of course audiences are always active in their consumption of the media. They choose what they want to watch, they active in processing the information, they active to determine what is rational and irrational in media presentation, ect.
What that makes different in participatory culture, is that it enable audiences also active in media production and distribution. With the support of technology (i.e. digital technology), audiences can participate to create the content and distribute media product (check concept about “viral marketing” or “permission-based marketing” in Jenkins article)
And does it related to the time (the concept “now and then”)? I think the answer is yes. Since the digital technology development is going faster in the last few decades and we are not sure where it is going to lead us, in my opinion, we can say the audiences is different in the past, present and the future.
I still want to emphasize that it is not happen immediately and simultaneously. It probably already happens in developed country, but not in developing country (for example). But the thing is, it open the possibility for audiences involvement.
Any comment guys..?
Hello everyone!!
I found you guys;) hurrah hurrah…im not the smartest when it comes to IT, don´t know if you guys picked up on that by now;)
Well I have read all of your comments….God it was almost as long as the Jenkins text…if not longer;) But very good points everyone…it made me understand the concept of Participatory Culture a bit better…thank you.
Well not to dictate what we should discuss but I have no further comments on the understanding of audience being active or passive in media consumption, production and distribution. I think Rouli´s comment above summarized it very well.
In class we briefly talked about facebook and whether it was a Participatory Culture or not. I got the impression that you guys didn´t think it was.
After reading Jenkins article I have come to think that facebook very much is a Participatory Culture.
I do agree that you can look at facebook as a space to promote your self through your profile and in that sense it is really just “one way communication”.
I guess it comes down to how you use facebook. I can only talk for myself.
Im from Denmark and being very fare from home, facebook has become a great place for me to keep in touch with my friends and interact with them. I upload pictures from my life here and from different events and they comment on them and I comment back. They do the same from their profiles. If I have a topic I find interesting a can create a group through facebook and I can invite people to join and people are free to upload pictures, videos, make comments within this group and its topic.
would you not say that that creates Participatory Culture?
Any comments?
if you love your facebook benidikte i love my friendster too! i am so much at home with it!
cheers! see you tomorrow guys!