Alison Kelly Midterm

Jenkins and Conway and the formation of ‘Participatory Politics and Progression’
Communications 405
Kyle Conway
Alison Kelly

Participation is an oft used term in the realm of communication and social theory, one that is heartily used by Professor Kyle Conway in “Technology/Form - An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies” and by Henry Jenkins in “Convergence Culture - Where Old and New Media Collide.” Both of these authors address many facets of their related thoughts and various questions involving the way in which our current technological and information society is progressing towards, both authors address the mode in which we ourselves are evolving into participants of the media.

At a certain point as well, both address the changes in political structure and the way in which individuals are migrating toward not only becoming more involved in their election process, but establishing how policy makers are attempting to relate to their constituents through the evolving media. Also, the authors both agree that the public and the varying media outlets could work more towards bettering our society in one form or the other.

However, the two authors clash on their idea of the public and what the publics involvement is currently or what it has been in the past. Also, Jenkins has much more of a focus tuned towards politics while Conway’s work is of a much broader spectrum, therefore I am pulling towards the ideals that Conway represents instead of clear-cut political specifics.

In this paper, I am going to outline the forms in which these two authors conflict and compare and note specifically on their thoughts as to where the progressive participation in either politics or media are transcending towards.

Similarities
The two authors see the importance and both express a small amount of excitement in the potential of participatory media. Jenkins views it as something that has already occurred and goes on to say “… as this book has demonstrated, we are already living in a convergence culture. We are already learning how to live betwixt and between those multiple media systems.” (pg. 223)

This quote is in reference to the idea that people should be fighting for their right to participate, but that the fight is less heated than in the past due to availability.

Conway places a little less importance on the idea that the participatory is already in place, mainly because his text is meant to educate a certain group, one that is possibly not as well-versed as the other. However, participation is a large part of his message, for example “Understanding the media system means first of all our place in it.” (pg. 84).

Differences
As mentioned above, both of the authors see the importance of participation, and again the biggest difference was views placed in a timeline. Conway would want to have his students ask themselves what these varying theories mean and how can we, as individuals, upkeep the trend of participation. However, in the deeper recesses of the text, one can infer that he is really wanting to have students ask the questions to themselves and others, whether or not it is ok to be digesting the media as we do - that of entertainment. This previous question is addressed by several other authors during the semester as well, DeeDee Halleck and Susan Boyle to name a few, none of which seem to give an answer, which one could argue is important to a persons own education. In fact, Boyle and Halleck seem almost doomsday-ish when describing their views on the current media system, citing that none of it is natural or pertinent.

Jenkins on the other hand, has a much more embracing and positive view on the media and how we are converging, involving ourselves. However, he thinks that the next best way to connect politically, or one could argue in any other way, is to create a venue where all forms of media work together and harmonize. He goes on to state, “If we want to bridge between red and blue America, we need to find that kind of common ground and expand upon it. We need to create a context where we listen and learn from one another. We need to deliberate together.” (pg. 250)
Now……doesn’t that sound nice. Pardon me for the sarcasm but this type of sentence doesn’t bode well with me, it seems too easy and unbelievable. This is something that Conway does not do also, Jenkins feels the need to enter a plea in the final sentences of his text and encourage people to create more of a utopian form of convergence.

This also seems to be the largest difference between the two, whereas Conway is still questioning and gathering information, Jenkins has already decided that we need to unite and conform in a way in order to make our political ideals mesh, which is something I don’t agree with when looking at the political party system and other processes that occurred throughout an election process.

Progression
Despite the previously noted differences, both Conway and Jenkins believe in progression just as much as they stress the importance of participation; however neither are sure as what avenue will be taken with media convergence and politics.

For example, Jenkins writes “ . . it is possible to choose communications channels that perfectly match our own political beliefs and assumptions and as a consequence to develop a less rounded or nuanced picture of what other people believe,” (pg. 247).

Conway shares similar sentiments, “What cultural form might television have taken if the inventors and policymakers responsible for it had made different decisions?” (pg. 71)
Both authors seem concerned with the route in which the media has taken, but for different reasons. In the above quote, Conway seems interested in the idea of a more ‘utopian’ or ideal society where we as a united people use our technology and cooperative intelligence towards a greater need.

On the other hand, Jenkins is questioning the idea that we as a people have more away from being ‘well-rounded’ or knowledgeable in all political varieties (Republic and Democrat, for sake of argument) and instead only want to educate themselves in areas in which they are personally invested. Jenkins compares this to blogging in the following, “Bloggers make no claims on objectivity; they are unapologetically partisan; they deal often with rumors and innuendos; and as we will see, there is some evidence that blogs are mostly read by people who already agree with their authors’ stated views.” (pg. 227)

Despite the differing spheres that these authors are presenting their arguments with a wary attitude and mainly ask the reader where they think media will progress towards, which I find to be the most interesting question.

The end of Conway’s chapter “If television weren’t TV, what would it be?” leaves the best thought presented by either, “On the one hand, technology is what we, -- make of it.” (pg. 85). Though simple, the sentence aids that despite all the questions that can be asked and the various individual communication theory ponderings, students, along with everyone else, get to decide on their own what their own technological impact will be and perhaps the best part of that individualistic view is that there is so far no answer.



Works Cited

Conway, Kyle. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Communication Program, 2009.

Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.