Aaron Horak Final Paper

Future Predictions of the World According to South Park

The future has been predicted by many people, in the early Greek civilization they had what they called oracles; men an women who we now seem to know got high and tried to predict the future for their city-state. Nostradamus is said to be the most well known person to predict the future with his works he titled The Prophecies. Even Jesus Christ and other prophets in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, predicted the future. Today everyone from cult leaders and global warming alarmists like former Vice President Al Gore seem to try and predict the future. With my media artifact the writers of a TV program also seemed to try and predict the future for their realm of reality in the South Park world.

In this paper I try and put together the theories of three sources who predict what the world will look like in the years to come. One is a TV show called South Park, a popular cartoon on Comedy Central Network who tackles pop culture references from the Somali pirates, terrorists, Bloods vs. Crips, Japanese whaling, HIV, Guitar Hero, Global Warming, etc.. The other two are authors Jan Nederveen Pieterse and Samuel Huntington who have totally different takes on what is to come for human civilization. Also I will be answering the three questions required for the paper (1) What do the theories of the two authors reveal about the artifact? (2) Does the artifact confirm or contradict the theories of the two authors? (3) What general conclusions come out of the artifact and the theories of the two authors with “Social Implications of an Information Society”?

First let’s describe what my media artifact is. Like I have said above South Park is a cartoon TV show on Comedy Central Network that has a variety of topics portrayed during the program. South Park was created in 1997 by Trey Parker and Matt Stone and is now on its 13th season. The animation on the show is not like any other cartoon on television. When the show started the pilot was made entirely out of construction paper and stop motion cutout animation, and now is made with computers but it still has the same look. The target audience for this program has always been men in the ages of 18- 45 because of the vulgarity and humor that goes along with the show. The whole show revolves around the four main characters of boys who always seem to get into trouble or try to fix problems in their town of South Park, Colorado. The artifact in particular is from the 8th season with the episode titled “Goobacks”; it first aired April 28, 2004. The episode synopsis is humans from the year 3045 are traveling to South Park through a recently opened time portal and are looking for work, which in turn take jobs away from the people in South Park. It is up to the four boys and the town’s people to fix the problem. From this episode the writers of the show predict what will happen to the human race in over one thousand years.

I believe that this show clip is worthy of scholarly attention because not only are scholars predicting what the future will look like but pop culture and television are too. This is not the first instance of this happening. TV shows like Star Trek, the Jetsons, Futurama, etc. have all predicted what the future will look like for humans. For Star Trek, a TV show that ran in the 1960s, perceive the future as humans and aliens from other planets explore the universe. The Jetsons is a cartoon TV show also created in the 1960s depicts the future to be exclusively all white people in flying cars and in buildings hundreds and thousands of stories up in the air. Futurama is also a cartoon that is set in the 31st century and is much like Star Trek, but mostly about the daily lives of humans and aliens living together on Earth. All of these TV shows have an idea of what the future may hold for us humans. Of course all of these shows are made for entertainment and some can’t be taken seriously, but the creators and writers of these shows took a lot of time to make these shows and drew conclusions of what has happened to inventions and technology in the last two centuries and put together what might happen.

In the world of South Park time travelers come back to the present day looking for work because supposedly in the year 3045 the Earth is so overpopulated that it’s inhabitants travel to the past for a better life. We find out in the first seven minutes of the show that the time travelers are human, but are a little different. During the show you see CNN do a story on the future of humans and this is what is said, “Future Americans have evolved into hairless uniformed mix of all races. They are all one color which is a yellowy brownish whitish color. It seems race is not an issue in the future because all ethnicities have mixed into one.” So the writers, for entertainment purposes, predict that the different races of humans with have crossbreeded together to have no distinction of race at all. Later the reporter talks about the language of future humans, “The people in the future speak a complete mix of English, Chinese, Turkish and indeed all world languages.” So in the future there is only one language instead of the many we have in the present.

Now looking to the other two authors, Samuel Huntington would disagree with South Park’s view of the future. He has said in his article The Clash Of Civilizations, “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will no be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” (Huntington 1993) So for Huntington he believes that humans will not be able to get over their differences but will clash over their cultures. When he means culture he says “It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people.” (Huntington 1993)

Huntington goes into detail on why civilizations will clash. Instead of a utopian like future that South Park says might happen Huntington believes the human race will not be able to get along for 6 reasons. The first is differences in history, language, culture tradition and religion. “The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and the group, the citizens and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as different views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These differences are the product of centuries. They will not soon disappear. (Huntington 1993)

The second reason is that the world is getting smaller; interactions between peoples from different civilizations are increasing. “The interaction among peoples of different civilizations enhance the civilization-consciousness of people that, in turn, invigorates differences and animosities stretching or thought to stretch back deep into history.” (Huntington 1993) So for Huntington he believes that when different cultures interact with each other that breeds bad blood between the civilizations.

The next reason is economic modernization and social changes are separating people from longstanding identities. Huntington also says that with that the national identity is weakened. (Huntington 1993) Basically he is saying that a civilization’s culture is a huge price to pay when it comes to modernization. An example of this is the Islamic countries in the Middle East. They want to preserve their culture and religion, but without modernizing they will fall behind in the world, but if they modernize to much they might become much like the West which is what they don’t want.

The fourth reason is the growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. He goes on to say “the West is at the peak of its power. At the same time, however, and perhaps as a result, a return to the roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations….A de-Westernization and indigenization of elites is occurring in many non-Western countries at the same time that Western, usually American, cultures, styles and habits become more popular among the mass of people.” Huntington is saying that is non-Western countries the mass of people are moving towards the culture of the West while the elites and people in power are trying to go back to the roots of their culture and history.

The fifth reason is cultural characteristics. “In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was ‘Which side are you on?’ and people could and did choose sides and change sides. In conflicts between civilizations, the question is ‘What are you’ that is a given that cannot be changed….Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries.”
The last reason is the increasing of economic regionalism. “The importance of regional economic blocs is likely to continue to increase in the future. One the one hand, successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness. On the other hand, economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization.” (Huntington 1993) When Huntington talks about a common civilization he is talking about countries who have often have a common culture. Like America and other Western countries having free trade, while the Islamic countries come together and have their free trade with each other also. When there is free trade there is progress, but when other countries are excluded from a free trade organization it might cause problems.

The second author, Jan Nederveen Pieterse, has a totally different view of what the future will bring to the human race. Pieterse wants to see the world to join together and be able to be one civilization instead of many. “The commingling of cultures has led to economic innovations and growth in the past and has potential for doing so in the future.” (Pieterse 2009) When people come together there can be progress and peace.

Pierterse sees a couple of things that might happen in the future. First in that migration to and from every corner of the world and that it is a good thing and has helped all countries who have embraced immigrants. “Intercultural contact… has accelerated the diffusion of technologies and knowledges and the development of new technologies and forms of social and economic cooperation.” He thinks that immigrants have been able to help countries economically. “A key question is not merely whether immigration is culturally desirable, morally preferable, or politically feasible, but whether and how it contributes to economic development.” (Pieterse 2009)

With migration there will be also be crossbreeding between the races of man. Pieterse says that “a revaluation has taken place according to which crossbreeding and polygenic inheritance has come to be positively valued as enrichments of gene pool.” (Pieterse 2009) It is true that parents pass on better antibodies to diseases and children will then pass them on to their children, so the blending of races is seen as a good thing. Another reason to integrate with the races is to get past the idea of racism. “Mixing the races is the antidote to identity and ethnicity.”

Pieterse also says that hybridization can solve for a lot of the world’s problems. “Hybridization is an antidote to the cultural differentialism of racial nationalist doctrines because it takes as its point of departure precisely those experiences that have been banished, marginalized, tabooed in cultural differentialism. It subverts nationalism because it privileges border crossing. It subverts identity politics such as ethnic or other claims to purity and authenticity because it starts out from the fuzziness of boundaries.” (Pieterse 2009)

Pieterse then says that languages will come together, but will it come together into one he doesn’t say. “Presumably, some grammars have been mingling all along. Thus, a mixture of cultural grammars is part of the intrinsic meaning of the world religions. More fundamentally, the question is whether the distinction between cultural language and cultural grammar can bee maintained at all, as a distinction between surface and depth.” (Pieterse 2009)

Now even though Pieterse would like all of this to happen he also sees the dangers of hybridization of the human race. Pieterse says that future hybrids might get some backlash from others. Of course some people don’t like it when others have interracial marriages and start to mix certain words and phrases to create their own “language”, that’s some what common. But as Pieterse has pointed out migration for countries has helped economically. And with migration has come crossbreeding and language mixing.

Now after looking at the two authors lets see what they reveal about the media artifact. It shows that the media artifact does draw a lot of conclusions without reading into other authors who have wrote about what is to come in the future. Of course the writers of the TV show are very talented, what they really did was just assume what might happen without a lot of research.

The media artifact also shows that South Park went with Pieterse’s notion of the future to come instead of Huntington. The writers of South Park concluded that the people of the future will mix and mix until there will be no more race. They also assumed that with the crossbreeding the languages of the world will come together. Pieterse never said there would be one language, but it’s a TV show and its entertainment. Is also shows that even though the South Park writers probably didn’t read Pieterse they came to the same conclusions.

Then lastly my conclusions for this media artifact pertaining to social implications of an information society are that I believe that the world will only come together more quickly with more technology and free trade be accessible than it was in the past. With thoughts, ideas and newer technology there can be many bridges to other civilizations that we haven’t been able to build yet. I also believe in Huntington that in the near future we will have a clash between some civilizations, but in the end I think that hopefully in the year 3045 we will have some sort of unity just like in the South Park world.

Works Cited
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. Globalization & Culture. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, New York. 2009

Huntington, Sammuel. Clash Of Civilizations. Foreign Affairs Summer 2009

Southparkstudios.com

Lacey Erickson

The course entitled, “Social Implications of an Information Society” has highlighted the key ideas of our cultures converging with the emphasis on the technologies that have brought what our culture is today. With this elaborate title, I would like to first define what exactly is meant by social implications and of course an information society. Social Implications would be how we interact with each other, how we participate in the information society, the relationships we may before because of this new culture, and how we converge our media and technologies to better prepare ourselves and to be efficient. If we define our information society we can look at it as how our culture has come about. We now are living in a culture of consumerism. We are constantly being driven by social status, social norms, and media to consume as much information and products as possible. Information society is the public and people or consumers within the public have different degrees of involvement. The more the involvement with participatory media or the information given to you the more of an affect it will have on the implications. It key to remember that the media plays a vital role in targeting certain people for certain ideas and products. Demographics can affect the way a message is portrayed and where it is seen. Now that we have an understanding of social implications of an information society let’s apply it to a media artifact.

It’s that blue and white site that sometimes draws people to log on to even before their email - Facebook is becoming more and more popular everyday. On October 28, 2003 a started website of Facebook called Facemash and was changed to the popular name on February 4, 2004. Now, Facebook recorded that their 35-54 year old demographic segment not only continued to grow the fastest, but it accelerated to a 276.4% growth rate over the past 6 months. That demographic is doubling roughly every two months. Facebook has over 300 million users spread over 180 countries. This gives the credibility to Facebook for being a part of our global convergence and susceptible to the critique and breakdown of the social implication of Facebook and how it is related to our information society. We have read many scholarly theories and concepts this past semester and in this paper I plan to apply some of the ideas from Jan Nederveen Pieterse to explain social implications, how Facebook reveals about the theory, how the theory helps to describe the social implications.

With 300 million users it’s no surprise the implications of the site have affected many people and areas. Facebook as a social networking site keeps friends from all over connected. Many friendships are rekindled with the help of Facebook. Photos are able to be uploaded to the site allowing whomever is your friend to look at it. There is also certain features of the site that allows you to control who sees your profile, and who sees your pictures. You can limit your profile to certain information to certain people. It allows you to use the site and still feel safe and secure. There is also a way to have certain pages targeted to specific groups and networks. You can create a page for your religion, beliefs, your favorite singer, sports team, or even issues that are affecting society. It’s a way that you can not only advertise your ideas or beliefs, but find people that may have the same ideas as you. Facebook is a way to get connected and keep people engaging in the participatory media that has changed our culture. Now that there is a way to keep not only friends connected, but also groups and people who share the same beliefs and ideas, why not start advertising? Facebook has created a world where people are displaying their personalities, their favorites, their beliefs, ultimately who they are. This makes it very easy for people or companies to target their demographics. Profiles on Facebook are cutting out the research for the advertiser to find where their target audience is. No need when everything is stated on one page.

Facebook allows people to get connected, but all of this accessibility and efficiency of information could relay some implications that may be negative. More than one-quarter (26.9 percent) of the employers reported that they have Googled candidates or reviewed job applicant profiles on social networking sites. If the potential employer asks the candidate in the job interview about their Facebook profile, chances are they probably aren’t prepared to answer certain questions about their personal life, but here they are displaying all the personal information on the internet. According to an article from MSNBC.com, “Social networking sites have gained popularity among hiring managers because of their convenience and a growing anxiety about hiring the right people.” Employers aren’t the only ones looking at Facebook. Just last month a report about a Canadian woman on sick leave for depression would fight an insurance company's decision to cut her benefits after her agent found photos on Facebook of her vacationing, at a bar and at a party. Again, it’s not just a diary or only accessible by your friends it’s a social networking site that is able to be reached by not only by your friends, but whomever can access the internet. Identity theft is also been increased because of face book. Hackers hack into people’s account and pose as the victim. They then explain that they are in need of help financially (usually saying they are stuck in a foreign country or in a life or death situation) and if they could help to wire them money to a Western Union branch. According to a researcher on identity theft accessibility on Facebook, “Most people wouldn’t give this kind of information out to people on the street but their guard sometimes seems to drop in the context of a friend request on the Facebook.” Facebook has created this false world where with the click of a button someone you don’t even know can suddenly become your friend. Users should use precautions, but if they don’t another negative implication of Facebook can come into play. Along with thieves can be stalkers. According to an article entitled, The Anatomy of a Facebook Stalker, “There are a number of methods a stalker can use to keep track of you. Many of these are seemingly innocuous, and yet can give much more access to your information that you know.”Stalkers tend to look at your pictures, your Facebook status, and your wall posts. On top of these specific implications of Facebook, there is one large one that explains a lot about what Facebook means for our culture. Facebook has indeed kept people in contact, but the face to face contact has become more and more scarce throughout the years.

To understand how Facebook has become an affective medium we first need to look at it in a broad view. Facebook is a social networking site that is logged on to through the internet. The internet has been described as the perfect medium to converge information and ideas all around the globe. Globalization according to a historic definition is a long term historical process of growing worldwide interconnectedness. Internet helped pave the way for a fast and efficient way to converge cultures from all over the world. Globalization also involves a trend towards human integration with the converging of ideas comes the communication with the people that surround and relay the information or ideas. Facebook is a vehicle for globalization and human integration to occur. It allows people from all over the world to share ideas.

To describe how this globalization has affected our culture I would like to apply the ideas of Weber on McDonaldization. According to Nederveen Pieterse, “There is a widespread understanding that growing global interconnectedness leads toward increasing cultural standardization and uniformization as in the global sweep of consumerism. Facebook can be seen as a commodity but more so a commodity of a participatory medium. McDonalization, according to Ritzer is “the process whereby the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world.” There are five main components of McDonalization; they are efficiency, calculability, predictability, control, and irrationality of rationality. First off efficiency is the effort to discover the best possible means to whatever end is desired. Workers in a fast-food restaurant burgers are assembled in a assembly line fashion so that they get out quickly. The restaurant is even set up for people to quickly eat and leave. Facebook is efficiently set up for us to log on. They even have an icon at the side of the page that pops up some of your friends so you can click on them and interact with them easier and more quickly. There is link to you and your friends back and forth if you write on their wall, and there is even tags in pictures so that you can access their profile with one click. Calculability is the emphasis on quantity of quality. In the McDonald’s view, calculability is described with various aspects of the work at fast-food restaurants is timed. The emphasis on speed over compensates the quality of the work. When users log onto Facebook they are able to access profiles quickly, but the ease causes the time spent on there to be quick. We tend to not have big conversations when we are on their it’s more like a quick message or a writing on the wall. Most of the time it’s just little sayings only the author and the recipient would understand, but there it is for everyone to see. Predictability is when things are pretty much the same from one geographic setting to another and from one time to another. In fast-food restaurants employees are to look the same and perform their job in the same ways. When you order a Big-Mac at one restaurant you should predict and expect the same thing at another. Facebook is predictable. When you log on you see the same thing every time. It always logs into your Facebook profile, and the layout of the website is the same throughout. Besides different languages Facebook still has the same colors, links and applications in every country. It’s predictable, even on a global level. Control is described as the domination of technologies over employees and customers. In fast-food restaurants they have machines that take over certain labors that a person could perform easily, but it goes hand in hand with predictability, efficiency and calculability. There are French fry machines that buzz and lift up when they are finished, and you can fill up a cup with pop by pushing a button and you don’t even have to hold it there. Control related to Facebook has to do with the idea of Facebook itself. Facebook is a technology that allows us to communicate with people without seeing them. We don’t have to sit and have a long conversation if we don’t want to it’s there if we want to say one word to someone or a whole conversation. We don’t even have to respond back if we don’t want to and it’s not considered rude if you don’t. The irrationality of rationality is the reality that rationality seems to often lead to its exact opposite irrationality. In a fast-food restaurant the effeminacy of the fast-food is often replaced with the inefficiency of long lines. Facebook is suppose to keep people connected, but with the ease and normality of just talking to a person on Facebook it cuts a lot of the communication out.

As you can see there is a distint similarity and understanding of how Facebook has become a mark in our culture as a consumption theory through McDonaldization. It shows that in a capitalist society of consumerism, Facebook is a medium that allows us to consume information efficiently. Facebook is then considered a part of the information society and does have positive and negative implications of it. I think that it is key to understand that the contradiction of the positive and negative affects shows the reality of our convergence. The convergence of cultures can erase barriers between people, but that can cause the falling of cultures and the loss of traditions that our society once stood for.

Du, Wei. (August 14, 2007). Job candidates getting tripped up by Facebook. MSNBC.com. Retrieved Dec 2, 2009.

Easley, Sean. (May 20, 2009). The Anatomy of a Facebook Stalker. Associatedcontent.com. Retrieved Dec. 2, 2009.

Facebook diagnosis affects benefits Depression sufferer fights insurer. (November 24, 2009) St. Paul Pioneer Press. Retrieved Dec 2, 2009

Gray, Kevin. How Will Your Online Profile Affect Potential Job Offers? Jobweb.com. Retrieved December 2, 2009.

Messmer, Ellen. (Aug 14, 2007). Study: Facebook users easy targets for identity theft. MacWorld.com. Retrieved on Dec 2, 2009.

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. (2009). Globalization & Culture; Second edition. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Communication, Power and the Public by Allison Lampert

“You can walk up to anyone in the world and ask them what they say and they will know exactly what you mean. When in the history of the world has that happened?” This is a quote from the new television series FlashForward. While the blackout and flashforwards of the show may be fiction, the society is not. This show gives us a glimpse of what the world could be like if there was a truly global crisis. By watching the show we are viewing the possible social implications of our information society.

The premise is that at exactly the same time every single person in the word blacked out. However, they didn’t simply blackout, they had what they call a flashforward. For two minutes and seventeen seconds the entire world had a glimpse of the future. The flashforward is of April 29th 2010, six months from the date of the flashforward. The show follows a group of FBI agents investigating the flashforward. While trying to deal with the pressure of finding out answers about the flashforward, they also have to deal with the personal implications of their flashforwards, or in the case of one agent, the lack there of. One character doesn’t have a flashforward. One recovering alcoholic’s, Mark, flashforward is blurry because he is intoxicated. In Mark’s flashforward his is in the FBI office investigating the blackout. He sees the investigation board and all the clues posted there. The FBI team uses his memory of the board as a lead into what caused the blackout and if it will happen again. There are two sub-plots with the FBI team, the investigation of the flashforward and the characters personal lives. There is also a mysterious character, Simon. A group of scientists, including the man Mark’s wife saw herself with in her flashforward, apparently caused the blackout. Unfortunately the FBI team doesn’t know this.

The show is created by the same people who created Lost. When advertising for the series primer, this was heavily promoted. Since Lost is going into it’s last season, there was going to be a devote group of people wanted a good, suspense show where anything could happen. People trusted the creators of Lost to create another quality show, and did they deliver! This is important to consider when thinking about the show itself. There was a built in audience.

FlashForward may be fiction but there are many aspects of it that correlate to “real life”. It is set in the present day, the first episode aired one month, five days before the present date in the show. It is not set in a fictitious world. They have all the same technology and culture we have today. Their world is the same as ours minus, of course, the social effects of the blackout. Many of the social implications of the blackout are relevant and prevalent in our society.
Over 20 million people died during the flashforward globally. This is the definition of a global crisis. In times of national and international crises, communication, power, and the interactions between the two are very important. According to Manual Castells in Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society mass communication is essential to politics and the power they have. Politicians and political activists use mass communication to inform the public about the issues and their opinions. This is not to say that the public thinks that everything they see on television is true. The public is an active audience, a literate audience, a participatory audience. Therefore the media do not control what the public thinks but more what they think about. This is the idea of the media as agenda setters. This is power of the media.

The effect of mass communication is evident in FlashForward. Every possible television station was reporting on the effect and the questions associated with the blackout. The media reacted initially by reporting the immediate effect of the blackout. The destruction and the deaths a global blackout caused. It didn’t take long, however, for the media to find “experts” to talk about the finer details of the blackout. In fact the audience first hears the concept of “flashforward” while watching an interview on a television with a medical expert. He says that brain scans of people showed that the part of the brain that deals with memory showed a sharp spike during the blackout. He says that they were experiencing memories. The FBI team consequently comes up with the term “flashforward”. The media also interviews the public. The find random people on the street and ask them their opinion on the blackout and the flashforwards. The most common question is “Do you think the flashforwards can be changed or are they concrete?” The very fact that the media is asking that question of the public is important. It shows that it is still a question that needs to be answered. Besides asking the experts and the public the media also asks the politicians.

The President is not the most charismatic person on television. This brings up the point of personality politics. According to Castells personality politics stems from election politics. The undecided public will often choose a candidate based on personality. Personality politics plays a role outside of elections. How the media portrays the President after a crisis will determine if the public trusts him to get them through this tough time. Since the character and trustworthiness of candidates and politicians play such a vital role in elections and politics in general, the goal is to keep your integrity while destroying your opponents’. Castells says that the destruction of character and credibility is one of the most sought after and cherished political weapons. The goal in politics these days isn’t so much as to build your own credibility but to destroy others.

In the political scene recently there is much evidence of scandal. In the recent election one of the biggest, dealt with the daughter of a vice president candidate. It came out during the election that republican Sara Palin’s teenage daughter was pregnant. Some people felt that she couldn’t help run the United States if she couldn’t even control her teenage daughter enough to keep her from becoming pregnant. This is just one example among many of a political scandal. For some undecided voters this may have been enough to turn them to the Democratic Party. According to Castells the effect of scandals are twofold. First there are obvious consequences for the individual or individuals involved with scandal. Instantly their credibility is destroyed. This will have an effect on the way people vote in an election. Dirty politics and mudslinging is common in this day and age. The negative advertisements and revealing of scandals can often sway the undecided voter. If the credibility of most or all of the candidates are in question the voters will vote for the lesser of the two evils. They will choose the misguided candidate with the values and ideas closest to their own. The second effect is the distrust of the political system as a whole. According to a poll by the US secretariat and the World Economic Forum in 2000 and 2002, two thirds of the world believes their country isn’t run by the will of the people. This has a large effect on how people vote. Instead of voting for a candidate because they want them to win, they vote for them because they don’t want the other candidate to win.

Personality politics and scandal are apparent in FlashForward. For the most basic example, when all the different factions of the US government stand before the panel and explain their ideas on the blackout, the most credible person will receive the money and permission for further investigation. It is not quite as simple as that. When the head of the FBI team the show follows, Stan, is describing what they had found and why, a particular person on the board seems to really be grilling him and trying to destroy his credibility. The audience finds out that she holds information that could really hurt him. We also find that Stan has some dirt on the President. He threatens to expose an affair in an attempt to get the backing of the President to continue their investigation.

Within the last decade or two the global use of the internet has vastly expanded. According to Nielson Online, social networks/blogs are the 4th most popular online activity. Most blogs are personal and are a form of mass self-communication, according to Castells. Mass self-communication is similar to mass communication in that it uses a one-to-many model. The difference is that the blogger doesn’t always write with an audience in mind. Since most are personal, they are simply the blogger expressing themselves and trying to get their thoughts out. Usually there is no commercial intent.

After the blackout, mass self-communication rapidly increased. The FBI team created a website called Mosaic. This is a place where people could go to share their flashforwards as well as read others’. The FBI’s reason for creating it was to be able to use people’s flashforwords to futher their investigation. The website allows people to cross-reference their flashforwards. People can read other’s post and try to find someone in their flashforward they don’t know. This website is global and has global effects. It is about sharing and coming together in a time of crises. While the immediate danger of planes, cars, and ships crashing is over, the emotional and societal problems have just began. Many characters meet people and learn about their future through the website.

In times of social or political change, counter-power increases. According to Castells counter-power is “the capacity by social actors to challenge and eventually change the power relations institutionalized in society”. People try to change society. This is no new fact. What is newer is the rise of mass self-communication to try to build counter-power. People use mass self-communication to try to influence the values and beliefs of society. Once a person becomes active in counter-power it becomes their identity. People associate with others with the same beliefs and values.

Immediately after the blackout, the world changed. People saw their future, or lack of one. People’s decision making processes changed. Decisions are being made according to what people saw in their flashforwards. It is even influencing doctors’ decisions, as seen in the scene where a doctor tries harder to save a woman’s uterus than she would have before because she knew the woman was pregnant in her flashforward. Some people make decisions based on what they saw, others on what they didn’t. The belief that if you didn’t have a flashforward during the blackout, you will be dead by April 30th 2010, is a common one. Many of these people call themselves Ghosts, and this becomes their idenity. There is a website for this society. It subtly points the way to “death clubs”. These are places people can go to indulge in many dangerous, illegal and taboo acts. People are free to do whatever they want. This is counter-power. Counter-power has a large role in the post-blackout society.

There are 1 billion users of the internet today. There are extreme social implications of this. The internet is the closest thing we have to a public sphere. The internet allows us to communicate more often and with people we would not have before. Today we can web-chat in real time with someone across the globe for free. According to Jurgen Habermas in The Public Sphere: An encyclopedia article, newspapers, magazines, radio, and television are the examples of the public sphere. The internet is the ultimate public sphere. The public sphere is the mediator between the public and the state. You don’t have to have a production plant or studio to access or use the internet. Anyone can state their opinion in the internet. There are so many ways to have public discussions. With the advent of each new form of media the public sphere has changed. The internet has however expanded it as far as possible, the public sphere is now global. The extensive use of both the Mosaic and Ghost website is evidence of the new public sphere created by the internet.

The public sphere and public opinion is a very important aspect in post blackout society. Since no one has any real information on the blackout, the media turns to public opinion. The media interviews the people on the street to find out their opinions. They want to know what caused it, if it will happen again, and if the flashforwards are concrete or changeable. The use if the internet to express public opinion is also very important in FlashForward. The Mosiac and Ghost website show that.

New technology is causing a decrease in the private sphere. Modern constitutions give citizens the right to privacy. This is hard to enforce. Camera phones and the internet are just two of the major factors. In the case of the famous “star wars kid” on YouTube, private things going public can ruin lives. The “star wars kid” taped himself imitating a light saber fight and forgot to destroy it. Some students at his school found it and put in on YouTube. He has since changed schools and is in the process of suing the students who posted the video. It is hard for a regular high school student to keep his private life private. Politicians and celebrities have to work extra hard to keep a private life, even though the constitution guarantees us a private sphere. Politicians employ public relations specialist to do public relations work. Their work consists of trying to persuade the public to believe what they are saying. This is trying to change public opinion which should stay public, according to Habermas. This is often needed the most when something private becomes public.

Stan and the President find themselves threatened with the private going public. This is the nature of politics. If Stan’s secret gets out, his FBI team will not be able to continue their investigation. The fact that Mark was drunk in his flashforward is a private matter, until the entire investigation is based on what his flashforward. This when the decision has to be made if the right to privacy is more important than the credibility of the investigation and the FBI.
FlashForward is a television show that mirrors our lives. It shows us how our information society effects us, in both negative and positive ways. The audience looks at the use of technology and media and reflects on our own use. The audience sees the effect of an information society on the characters and notices the same effects in their lives. The information society we live in to today effects us in every aspect of our lives. From ruining a high school student’s reputation to helping a candidate become elected president, the implications are everywhere.

The unseen hazards of globalization

As communication students we are inundated with definitions, predictions and overall theories of excitement on globalization. What I am proposing, with the media artifact of “In Bruges” and the texts of Manuel Castells and Nederveen Pieterse, is that this phenomena of globalization and seemingly never ending social movements, such as FaceBook and Change That Works, is not necessarily all good. Texts like “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman, which is assigned in Communication and Society and Henry Jenkin’s “Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide,” provide readers with a somewhat rose-tinted view of the world with quotes like, “Walls simply aren’t what they use to be – even for the kings and queens – and this change is opening new opportunities for political activism where it was previously unimaginable,” (Friedman, 506), which gives the reader the perception of a globalized world where the average man can become a high-ranking politician or a king.

Quotes such as these and ones that litter “The World is Flat” imply the positives in globalization and integration, which is a necessary and important argument in which to be well versed because to a lengthy extent, this is the world that our generation is entering. Friedman’s book is over 600 pages long and provides several examples to enrich his argument of the world being flat, such as telemarketers in India taking a McDonald’s order in Idaho or stay at home moms in Utah booking flights for people flying Jet Blue. However, Nederveen Pieterse’s book sits a meager 117 pages and is able to encompass both sides of the argument in the globalization debate, and the sixth chapter especially symbolizes the dangers associated with our supposed social connections.

Granted, I believe in the importance of a connected society, one in which we as people can find common grounds on a variety of topics and issues, but I also hold that there is an extreme danger in thinking that the more information we, as humans, are entitled to and consume equals greater intelligence or understanding. In fact, I argue, along with my artifact and readings that we are blinding ourselves behind a façade of empty information and that we are not as socially intelligent or progressive as our texts and professors suggest.

Also, despite my previous assertion of Friedman and the general thought that he has a tendency to sensationalize globalization, he can at the same time note some of the fear that many Americans, including myself, hold within themselves. Friedman states “The faster and broader this transition to a new era, the greater the potential for disruption,” (Friedman, 49).
This particular Friedman quote stands alongside Pieterse and Castells in their writings that the future there will be future transitions and with that comes power struggles. These struggles will be different however because they will be determined over our minds and will change the way we think, which will be a dynamic determinant for our future societal norms.

ArtifactMy artifact, “In Bruges,” is a movie intended to address issues such as second chances and preconceived notions of individuals. Also, it is the story of two men on the run after a paid killing went horribly wrong. The movie “In Bruges” characters are having a discussion about the possibility of a war occurring between blacks and whites due to an embedded hate that neither race has control over. This argument, which I displayed in class, lumps all people together saying that no matter you personal beliefs or ideologies, your hate or animosity is predetermined. However, not everyone in the film agrees with this dangerous theory. Ken, the heavy set man who storms out of the room because his black wife was killed by a white man, thinks that he should be able to determine what side he fights on because he is an individual.

In relating the artifact to the texts, Pieterse can be chimed alongside the “In Bruges” argument in a couple ways. The first being the loss of autonomy and individuality in the artifact, which likens to the Pieterse text because it warns of the dumping of cultures and the possible takeover of westernized and Eastern modernized capitalism and the downfall of European dominance. “Polarization means the suppression of the middle ground, but does suppression mean that the middle ground does not exist?” (Pieterse, pg. 116). Emptying out the middle ground leads to the loss of individuality and the complete disregard of the importance of cultures. Pieterse notes the conflict of Israel and Palestine as an example of a dispute that can’t be quelled by globalization and hybridity alone. “What of hybridity amid the world’s most chronic conflict zone, the borderlands of Israel and Palestine? Does recognizing this conflict dragging on and on mean ignoring multiple identities on neither side, the complex identity of Arab Israelis, and the backdrop of the levant on both sides of the border,” (Pieterse, pg. 116).

“In Bruges” makes the mistake that Pieterse warns against, it dismisses the importance of underlying cultures individual beliefs and customs. The artifact takes away from peoples personal experiences and Pieterse would note that this is due to the mistake that one can learn culture. “Another misperception that I have sought to avoid or dispel in this account is that “culture” is a rarefied, separate domain, somewhere on the soft side of the hard realities of economics and politics,” (Pieterse, pg. 116). Instead, Pieterse notes that culture in human software and that it is “not just an afternoon spent in the Louvre or an evening in the Scala of Milan or the Hard Rock Café,” (Pieterse, pg. 116). The artifact would agree with this statement of culture being ‘human software’ because the war taking place is based strictly on the color of one’s skin instead of the individual beliefs because if that were the case there would simply be war based upon capitalism and other societal issues.

The best point Pieterse makes in his sixth chapter is that of the actual importance of borders. “With constructivism in social science comes the awareness that social realities and boundaries are socially constructed,” (Pieterse, pg. 117). In “In Bruges” the importance of race predetermines the war, however this mass unionization of blacks and whites would mean that the borders have been broken and we, as world society, have lost our inherent cultural differences. “Powerful interests are invested in boundaries and borders, affecting the fate of classes, ethnic groups, elites; while borders and boundaries are a function of differentials of power, they are social constructions that are embedded and encoded in cultural claims,” (Pieterse, pg. 117). With this type of breakdown we have lost our differences and our capitalistic endeavors and have instead, in the most extreme form, traipsed into fascism.
Also in the ideals of hybridity and power in relation to “In Bruges” comes the Castells article “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Scoiety” where the author argues again about the loss of autonomy and individual importance. The article fits well with the artifact in that they are both wary of a future war. “In Bruges” discusses a war based on race and Castells portrays a battle over our minds. “This is because the fundamental battle being fought in society is the battle over the minds of the people,” (Castells, pg. 238) and that this occurring battle is more effective because “torturing bodies is less effective than shaping minds,” (Castells, pg. 238).

Castells touches on a more recent topics of interest, that being Internet social movements, applications to current media and political campaigns. He addresses these ideals to the differences between individualism and communalism, “the culture of communalism roots itself in religion, nation, territoriality, ethnicity, gender and environment. The culture of individualism spreads in different forms: as market driven consumerism, as a new patter of socialibility based on networked individualism, and as the desire for individual autonomy based on self-defined projects of life,” (Castells, pg. 240).

In individualism versus communalism in relation to “In Bruges” the actors are more concerned about, what they, as a predisposed shared community, will have to do to be a part of this war and Castells, in a sense, is arguing that the more individual we are and the more akin we are to the globalized technical world, the more likely we are to be shut off from this globalizing world. “In fact, my own empirical studies on the uses of the Internet in the Catalan society show that the more an individual has a project of autonomy, the more she uses the Internet. And in a time sequence, the more he/she uses the Internet the more autonomous she becomes vis-à-vis societal rules and institutions,” (Castells, pg. 249).

So, with that in mind, one can argue that the technology and trends that are pointing towards a more globalized and connected society are actually moving into a society where they, themselves, as individuals can read the opinions they want and take advice they want. As written, the previous does not sounds like a bad thing, but if we are to become a more globalized and connected society, individuals need to be open and educated on all sides of the spectrum. As Castells writes, the more people are able to delve themselves into their own self interests, the less they are able to be culturally aware of other societies and without that, the idea of cultural globalization is a mute point. Simply listening to opinions that sway to one side and researching social movements that sit on a particular side because we can in the form of an Internet connection doesn’t mean a more education, open and culturally aware individual and this is what is the most terrifying of a supposed ‘globalized society.’

In his finishing paragraph, Castells points to what best summarizes my thoughts on our trending globalization. “It will be the result of the new stage of the oldest struggle in humankind: the struggle to free our minds,” (Castells, pg. 259). Castells thinks that this continued trend toward individual endeavors online will cause people to become more akin to each other and more likely to organize and fight with each other than people who think for themselves and research both sides of the story. Instead of becoming more intelligent, society is escaping into the fallacy that more information equals lengthened intelligence and understanding when in reality, if one is only reading what they choose.

As stated in class, I do not personally feel that I myself am any more culturally socialized or significant as the day before simply by reading and accepting globalization theories. I think that that is too easy for a student to do and instead I care to look towards the problems that exist when we, as autonomous individuals, latch onto trending topics. People need to be wary of what it means culturally to attempt to be the same and the implications society may face if we all turn to one culture. These implications could go as far as a war, such as the race war depicted in “In Bruges” or could be as simple as less education as Castells portrays, but I want to simply leave with what Pieterse writes in the last chapter “globalization and culture is not an innocent theme,” (Pieterse, pg. 113).

Works Cited
Castells, Manuel. “Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society.” International Journal of Communication 1 (2007): 238-266.

Friedman, Thomas L. “The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century.” New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. V. 3.0, 2007.

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004.

Katie Callison's Final Paper

Hybridity, Media Deception, and the link to Pop Culture Dance Films

In his study of globalization as hybridization, Jan Nederveen Pieterse suggests, “Cultural hybridization refers to the mixing of Asian, African, American, European cultures: hybridization is the making of global culture as a global mélange” (83). Some recent popular films that have demonstrated cultural hybridization are Save the Last Dance, Step Up, and Take the Lead.

Save the Last Dance is a romantic dance drama about two interracial teenagers who overcome various cultural obstacles, become a couple, and train for a dance audition. The main character Sarah, played by Julia Stiles, is a preppy white girl who moves to a predominantly black neighborhood in Chicago with her estranged father after her mother dies in a car accident. Sarah vows to give up ballet despite her dreams of Julliard until Derek befriends her and helps turn her dream of Julliard into reality. Since Sarah is one of the only white people at school she takes a lot of criticism and is surrounded by a culture very different from what she was previously used to. For instance, when Sarah is first invited to a hip hop dance club she finds that she doesn’t fit in for more reasons than just her skin color, and people are slow to accept her being there. Though through Derek, Sarah learns hip-hop and better fits into the black community ultimately allowing jealousies to be dropped. Save the Last Dance demonstrates how cultures are slow to accept new members and it is only after Sarah combined her old culture with the new culture by learning hip-hop that she was welcomed into the black community. Until Sarah learned hip-hop many people harassed her.

Step Up could also be classified as a romantic dance film, however the setting is Baltimore instead of Chicago. Tyler, played by Channing Tatum, is a troublemaker hoodlum who meets Nora, an uptight rich snob while serving community service hours at the Maryland School of Arts for breaking in. Nora must use Tyler to rehearse for an upcoming showcase, but personalities and dance styles of course clash. The backgrounds of these two individuals differ drastically. Nora comes from a high class home and Tyler, well he doesn’t exactly have a home. He lives at an orphanage. Eventually these two overcome their differences and wind up as a couple that is able to teach each other a thing or two about life from their side of the train tracks. Step Up shows audiences how every home faces difficulties and challenges and despite outside appearances we are all very similar. It wasn’t until Nora and Tyler found a common similarity, which happened to be dance, and shared dance styles with one another that they were able to get along and become friends.

Take the Lead is set at a high school in a gang stricken area of New York City. The cast is comprised of many different ethnicities. Antonio Banderas plays Pierre, a classical dance instructor who comes to the high school to take over the detention program. Pierre’s idea while teaching detention is to have the unruly students learn to dance. At first, many of the students are uncooperative and refuse to dance, but as the movie goes on certain events take place and the detention students slowly begin to take part. Entrance into a dance competition is further inspiration, and the students add their own culture and twist to the typical classical dance that Pierre teaches them. Throughout the film audiences view the struggles students living in ghettos often experience and see how the students are able to come together through the expression of mixing dance styles to create an art of their very own.

Again, according to Globalization and Culture, cultural hybridization is defined as “ the ways in which forms become separated from existing practices and recombine with new forms in new practices” (as cited in Rowe and Schelling). In this case the forms being represented are cultural forms such as dance. In all three films audiences see dance forms being mixed, altered, and transformed. Dance is the force that binds the characters together, creates a common ground, and detracts from the strong differences that initially separate the characters. In these movies dance produces a level playing field so the differences between characters vanish and the only thing that remains is a shared passion to dance. Even though the characters bring with them unique dance styles and preferences based on his/her own culture that no longer matters. When characters were able to find one common similarity between each other, which was dance, they were able to bond and become removed from existing practices. Dances in the various films changed from how they were previously preformed before interaction with the other characters.

Nederveen Pieterse believes that in order for hybridity to happen boundaries must be crossed. He argues that cultures have not just recently begun crossing boundaries, but this practice has been taking place all along. He lists a number of examples that indicate proof of cultures crossing. Nederveen Pieterse starts by explaining how half of the people in the world speak a language that comes from one common root. This example alone shows cross-cultural communication, but the author doesn’t stop there. He also recognizes the spread of world religions, disease, technologies, and symbols as markers of intercultural contact. One example that Nederveen Pieterse left off the list, however, is dance. As the films have shown, dance is largely influenced by culture and when cultures interact dance gets transformed.

Nederveen Pieterse writes, “Mixing is intrinsic to the evolution of the species. History is a collage” (111). When applying this quote to the films one could believe mixing is inherent because it helps species survive. Characters were not able to get along with each other until they were able to share something that was part of themselves. The mixing was what helped characters form bonds because they felt more similar to one another.

While Nederveen Pieterse might find hybridity at work in these three films, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno would discover something completely different. These two theorists argue that, “culture now impresses the same stamp on everything. Films…make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part” (120). In short, these men believe at the deepest level everything produced by the culture industries is the same and after viewing these movies it is hard to argue against their point.

It might be a trick question to ask audiences if Save the Last Dance, Step Up, and Take the Lead are different movies. That is because the answer could be yes and no. Horkheimer and Adorno wouldn’t be fooled though. They would outright say “No!”. Sure, on the surface these movies have many changes from one another, but if one stops to take a deep look at the actual plots and themes there is little difference.

For example, the three movies all share the common characteristic of using a main motivational character to break the shell of another character by way of dance. Save the Last Dance used Derek. He looked after Sarah and helped to not only teach her hip-hop, but also helped be her inspiration for trying out for Julliard. Nora was the motivational character in Step Up. She helped get Tyler’s life on track, encouraged him to try out for the Maryland School of Arts, and taught him a more formal way to dance other than his street style. Lastly, Pierre doubled as a dance instructor and a detention teacher to motivate the troubled teens in the New York City high school. He taught them to express themselves through dance instead of gang activities and violence. While all of the movies used different types of characters and settings, the use for a motivational character was consistent across films.

Also, the movies all featured characters trying to accomplish something. Sarah was training with Derek to get into Julliard, Tyler was working with Nora to be accepted into the performing arts school, and the students in Pierrre’s detention class were working to win a dance contest. The movies as a whole are also very stereotypical. An example would be the way romance was used within the movies. At first the main characters couldn’t get along and they would argue. Their lives were too different from one another and they just couldn’t see eye to eye. Then suddenly they would start connecting and then as predicted they would end up together. Other reoccurring themes across the movies were the characters being in high school, and the high schools were all inner city and poor.

By inspecting these films closely one is able to see media may not be as creative as once thought. All three of these movies were successful and brought in a large sum of money, but was the revenue received deserving when audiences paid for the same thing they had seen before? Save the Last Dance brought in awards from the MTV Movie Awards, the Teen Choice Awards, the Young Hollywood Awards, and the Black Reel Awards. Step Up received $21 million its opening weekend and Take the Lead didn’t do quite as well as Step Up but still brought in $12.8 million the first weekend (The Internet Movie Database). Also, Save the Last Dance and Step Up had sequels released showing the first film did well enough for a follow-up.

Audiences were even warned by reviews of all three moves that they would be seeing the same thing they had seen before. Overall the films received poor reviews with critics claming a formulaic plot. This is consistent with Horkheimer and Adorno’s writing that says, “Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through.” Critics are first to realize the clichéd themes reoccurring in films and warn the public that what they would view by watching the film is nothing original.

By applying Nederveen Pieterse and Horkheimer and Adorno to the films we are able to see the arguments that each of the authors present come to life. The films help to strengthen both of the theorist’s claims because the films can be used as a tool to back up the argument. It is hard to argue against the theorist’s points when an artifact so strongly demonstrates the point of views. While watching the films we are able to see first hand cultural hybridity. The best example of cultural hybridity at work is in the film Take the Lead when the students completely transform classical dance to make their own style that is unique and original. These movies provide the opportunity to witness real examples of what Horkheimer and Adorno claim the media industries do. Presenting films that actually show reproduction strengthens Horkheimer and Adorno’s argument.

When audiences view these movies they witness cultural hybridity occurring. Audiences are able observe other cultures and see how cultures mix. When audiences have the opportunity to watch other lifestyles we can imply that media is helping to unite us. Through films cultural hybridity continues. Not only are audiences watching hybridity occur, but by watching the other cultures audiences have the opportunity to have their eyes opened to another culture. These films help present the idea that cultural mixing is beneficial. When viewers leave these films they walk away having seen the positive advantages of cultures crossing borders and intertwining. Audiences see characters grow from experiencing another person’s culture. Hybridiy is constantly occurring and it is a good thing so it is valuable that movies present this concept so audiences can unconscious learn this by watching a movie.

From Horkheimer and Adorno we can imply that mass culture in a monopoly society is all going to look alike because culture has been turned into a business. Media industries are going to produce a culture that will be profitable. Since Enlightenment As Mass Deception was written a long time ago and the same principles the theorists talked about still apply to today’s mass media it would be necessary to imply nothing about our culture industry is going to change until audiences begin demanding the system be changed by not consuming the mass media that is put out. Unless audiences put up a strike against the mass media industries and require more participation in the culture that gets put out for consumers there will continue to be films that come out that are nothing more than imitations.

Works Cited

Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. John Cumming. New York: Continuum, 1972. 120-167.

Nederveen Pieterse, Jan. Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004.

Save the Last Dance Dir. Carter, Thomas. Cort/Madden Company, 2001.

Step Up Dir. Fletcher, Anne. Summit Entertainment. 2006.

Take the Lead Dir. Friedlander, Liz. New Line Cinema, 2006.

The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved on December 7, 2009, from http://www.inmd.com.

Participatory Media and Harry Potter

Rhiannon McLane
Comm. 405
Final Paper
12/15/09
Harry Potter and Participatory Culture

After reading Henry Jenkins’ fifth chapter titled, “Why Heather Can Write,” it became clear to me that I wanted to use her educational website as my media artifact for the basis of this paper. I also chose author Dee Dee Halleck to further describe this artifact, because I feel as though this site is in need of recognition for its goals and accomplishments. The Website called The Daily Prophet can be compared and contrasted to the views of these two authors and their ideas about fans and participatory culture.

Heather Lawver in 2000 was a thirteen year old home-schooled girl in Mississippi. After reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone for the first time, she believed her life was changed forever. Within the same year, Lawver started up a website called The Daily Prophet, a website which youngsters like herself could write online news articles about the mysterious and magical wizarding world as fictional Harry Potter characters. Her staff consisted of 102 kids from around the globe who sent in their articles for Heather to peer review before they were posted on the site. She corrected simple spelling errors and gave tips about writing styles and formats. I believe Heather Lawver’s site deserves scholarly attention for inventing a fun, safe and imaginative learning environment committed to literacy for adolescence to express themselves and benefit from constructive criticism. Unlike some fan based sites, Lawver does not ask for any kind of membership fee or sell any kind of Harry Potter products, her site is strictly educational. Halleck agrees whole heartedly in supporting small media like Lawver’s academically structured site, stating, “Community media is often treated as historically insignificant, but many groups are actively building an authentic “public sphere” in their communities and deserve serious consideration not only in academic study, but in public service funding and infrastructure as well” (Halleck 386).

A similarity between Jenkins and Halleck is their support for sites like the Daily Prophet. This website though might be mistaken for fan based media, because Lawver is borrowing names and ideas and adapting them to her website, and encouraging kids (mostly for their own protection) to come up with an alias that revolves around the Harry Potter world. One might ask if she deserves credit for her website at all seeing as how she did not come up with the fictional storyline her website follows. How is this site any different from other Harry Potter fan sites? While Halleck does not mention fan based media, she is in favor of small independent organizations much like how Lawver’s site can be conceived. Halleck and Jenkins could agree that sites like The Daily Prophet are good for not only its readers but it’s member as well. Jenkins states in his book, “Here, people of many different ethnic, racial, and national backgrounds (some real, some imagined) formed a community where individual differences were accepted and where learning was celebrated” (Jenkins 180). Halleck too believes groups and organizations are “…created to educate, to communicate, and to empower local citizens” (Halleck 385).

“J.K. Rowling and Scholastic, her publisher, had initially signaled their support for fan writers, stressing that storytelling encouraged kids to expand their imaginations and empowered them to find their voices as writers” (Jenkins 194). Although Jenkins goes on to tell how Warner Bros started shutting down fan websites after buying the film rights in 2001. “Each site was suspended until the studio could access what the site was doing with the Harry Potter franchise” (Jenkins 194). The act of shutting down sites which have not been accessed would be scandalous and an example of why Halleck does not care for corporate media. She would interpret Warner Bros. as “the man” and would agree with the actions Heather took to support her site and the sites of many others. “Heather herself never received a cease- and- desist letter, but she made it her cause to defend her friends who were under legal threats” (Jenkins 195). Jenkins continues to write about the kids who were in legal controversies with Warner Bros., most being the ages between twelve and fifteen. Halleck would probably freak out if she knew that a corporate company was taking legal action against young teens. She would applaud Heather and the actions she took defending sites mirroring her own, from helping to organize a petition from debating with a Warner Bros. spokesman on television, bringing the issue to the public. I believe Jenkins would agree with Halleck about the ridiculous lawsuits against young kids, but I don’t think he would believe this situation to be about bringing down corporate media.

In Jenkins’ book, he talks about “scaffolding.” Scaffolding is when in a participatory culture the entire community tries “… encouraging kids to try out new skills that build on those they have already mastered, providing support for these new steps until the learner feels sufficient confidence to take them on their own” (Jenkins 187). The entire idea of Heather Lawver’s site is to try and encourage youths to become more confident in their writing by editing each and every column, and giving constructive criticism to each writer in order to help strengthen and build skills they already have and ones which might need altering.

Surfing The Daily Prophet was an eye opener. I never thought kids could be as organized as they are on this website. Heather gives writers and fellow Harry Potter bloggers tips about how to protect their sites from corporate media which I thought was very… well professional. I understand that during the so called “Potter Wars” Heather was 16, and fighting to protect her assets and the world she had built. It made me think of a quote by Halleck about small media, “They are belittled as pathetic when measured against the power and ubiquity of mass culture” (Halleck 385). Obviously Warner Bros. did not know Harry Potter fans were well organized!

A difference between Halleck and Jenkins is Halleck believes some small media is “not bent on entertainment or amassing viewer numbers” (Halleck 385). Although to Jenkins, fan culture is all about entertainment. “Fan culture” is fun; people who are fans of something enjoy participating in whatever it is they like to do. Whereas Halleck makes small media (which could be considered fan culture or activism) as a job, something professional and serious which is meant to be policy changing or thought provoking. I think Halleck’s view on small media is very strict, and goal oriented. She tries to prove points and has a distinct message for what she is trying to accomplish.
Although a similarity I like about the two is how they both believe that the community is important in the success of a project. Heather Lawver’s site would never have prospered as much as it did without the following of kids like herself. Their close- knit community gave them strength and a voice. Also a following, even one a small as TDP gives sense a sense of belonging and they all can share and partake in a community even though many of them do not live near each other.

So finally here’s the question… Who cares? Why should I care about some nerdy home- schooled girl from Mississippi? What does she have to prove and why is the creation of her site important? Well first of all we should recognize the accomplishments of a 13 year old creating a web site which helps teach kids how to write thoughtful stories and show them how to improve their writing skills. I am 20 years old and still can barely check my email account! Secondly, writers Halleck and Jenkins’ ideas about participatory culture are proven because of this girl's accomplishments. Using her site to explore theories and ideas by Jenkins and Halleck may help us better understand what is so important about participatory culture and technology. The “Potter Wars,” in which Heather Lawver was highly involved in, illustrates Halleck’s theories about the major influences a small media can have on a mass culture. Lawver’s well organized petition and boycott was made public through her site and many other sites connected to hers, and ended up getting her on MSNBC’s Hardball With Chris Mathews (Jenkins 195). It caused quite a stir that children’s right to the first amendment was being tampered with. This got the public’s attention, especially the fact that a 15 year old girl was debating and negotiating the rights of internet use with a middle aged representative of Warner Bros.

Heather Lawver’s site supports many of Jenkins’ theories on participatory media. One being how the media industry wants fans and viewers to make them money by participating in their product, whether that is buying the Harry Potter DVDs, clothes, costumes, games, toys etc. but at the same time industry is not sure how involved they want these viewers to be, they don’t want to lose money and when they feel like that is the case they will try and limit the fans’ participation. The “Potter Wars” is a great example of Jenkins’ theory showing that even children who pretend to be a witch or wizard can affect the money making ability of a company. Warner Bros. seeing these fan sites as a threat to their profit started shutting down these sites, even threatening to press charges against kids between thirteen and seventeen. Parents and viewers are shocked that a greedy company is suing children who are just pretending to be fictitious characters. This impact eventually embarrassed the studio, which resulted in them dropping law suits, unblocking fan sites, and issuing the statement that the whole situation was “an act of miscommunication” (Jenkins 196).

Small media is growing and beginning to have a larger impact than corporate media would think. These communities are established by people like you and me. They come together in order to blog about their ideals or learn something new. Websites like TDP are organized with community members who know their rights and are willing to take a stand for what they believe in, they will not be silenced out of fear of “big industry.” Sometimes corporate companies forget how websites connect followers from everywhere and can collect a large following, and are ultimately surprised when one cannot be silenced.

This leads me to the social implications of a media society. First of all there is no way of physically gathering a group in a organized fashion, so people become pretty limited in the idea that people have to support and represent their group where they are. Members and followers of TDP had to support the cause from their home front, wherever that was. The idea that the site is the meeting place for the members to join makes it harder for them to unite in the physical world. The internet also makes it easier for mass industry to silence voices and decrease people’s right to the first amendment. Just like the real world, people can still be attacked for their differences, so technology is still not as perfect and judge free as many believe. Kids on sites like TDP still have to work to fit in, “Some children fit in comfortably within the available roles; others feel excluded and have to work harder to insert themselves into the fantasy” (Jenkins 182-183).

Technology is always changing and though it will never be perfect, it’s always conforming to the many ways people use it. People’s participation in how they communicate change with the development of new technology. The internet is used for so many things that is really doesn’t surprise me that kids are actually getting help with school online. Heather Lawver’s participation and invention of The Daily Prophet illustrates the importance of communication and social networks which connect a community. Though The Daily Prophet is no longer up and running due to the illness of Heather Lawver, her site has shown me the strength of participating in small media and the negatives and how her website fits into our society, and the growing strength of small media.

Works Cited

Halleck, DeeDee. “The Uses of Community Media: A Global Survey.” Hand-held Visions: The Impossible Possibilities of Community Media. New York: Fordham University Press. 384-395.

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

Stephanie Waltz's Final Paper

Stephanie Waltz
Comm. 405
Final Paper
12/15/09

Media Influence and Politics: Creating a World for the Participatory Audience

Media and technology in society is ever changing. Society is influenced by media, specifically influential in the political realm. With access to the Internet, it is becoming easier and easier for people to create their own ideas and put them out for the rest of the world to see and critique. The electronic age is growing at a substantial rate and isn’t going to stop anytime soon, so it can be said that more and more people are going to be putting themselves out there for the world to see.
The two theorists I chose to use are Henry Jenkins and Manuel Castells. Both of these theorists compliment one another in that they both agree society is influenced greatly by the media; it being through any technology such as books, television, Internet, etc. I also believe that both theorists would agree upon people’s political views being somewhat influenced by the media. Castells goes into specific detail about the influence that media has on society in politics. Jenkins’ idea of the active audience and participatory audience is also a big key for the media influencing society.

I have chosen to use three different media artifacts involving politics and the media while discussing the two different theorists. The first clip is an advertisement between two different political parties using satire of both the politicians as well as through a previous advertisement shown. The second clip is being critical of the President of the United States using satire, through a satirical news network. Finally, the last clip I chose uses satire of two political parties through a dance off done by an active audience. The media artifacts that I have chosen to use are all from the Internet and are found on YouTube. I will go into more detail about each clip later on.

In this paper I will address three issues by using these three different media artifacts: What the theories say about the media artifacts, what the artifacts say about the theories, and the implications of an information society.

The first media artifact that I found is titled “Mac Ads Satire/Promo #4-‘Sarah Palin.’” This particular advertisement involves actors posing as Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. In the clip, they were showing both political satire as well as satire of the famous “Mac vs. PC” ads that are run through various technologies. I believe the demographic for this particular clip would be people liking satire and politics. I also feel that people would share this clip with friends and family. An example of this would be posting the link on Facebook. I have had personal experience with people posting certain links, such as music videos, on my Facebook because they think that it will interest me. I have, in turn, also posted clips on my friends’ Facebooks because I feel they would be interested. I feel that this is relevant because I believe that people have told other people about these clips after watching them; otherwise, why would they watch them?

In this particular clip, it is clear that Castells theory would say politics rely on the media to get their message across. Castells explains that, “the fundamental battle being fought in society is the battle over the minds’ of the people” (Castells, 2007, p. 238). I found this ideal because there is an obvious battle going on between two political parties. In this case the message that the maker of the clip is trying to convey is obvious; vote for Obama. Jenkins’ ideas about audience participation are seen through the comments that are written directly below the clip. Audience members are being critical of the media presented to them and share ideas and opinions with one another through this. I believe that Jenkins’ idea of transmedia storytelling is a definite part of this clip. He states that, “Transmedia storytelling refers to a new aesthetic that has emerged in response to media convergence-one that places new demands on consumers and depends on the active participation of knowledge communities” (Jenkins, 2006, pgs. 20-21). There was an advertisement on television debating that one computer was better than the other; the purchase of a Mac computer was a better choice than purchasing a PC, according to the commercial. This advertisement was taken from showing a computer versus a computer to a politician versus a politician. People who have seen the Mac vs. PC commercials can, more than likely, make the relation with this media artifact.

The Mac ad clip shows that, visually, one political party won the battle. It shows there is a battle over the minds of the people watching it. The clip, which is shown on YouTube, is shown to the general public, meaning that anyone can view it. Individuals may find the clip funny and therefore tell their family and friends about it through various ways of communication such as sending it in an email, posting it on Facebook, texting, etc. In this sense, the media artifact is dealing with the participatory audience that Jenkins focuses on. Not only did a supporter of Obama more than likely produce the clip, but people who had nothing to do with the making of the clip have a chance to share it with their friends and family. Jenkins says, “What we cannot know or do on our own, we may now do collectively” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 27). I believe that this clip is a good example of Castells idea of the battle over people’s minds as well as Jenkins’ point about audience participation. Both of these theorists would agree that this clip is a good example of the intertwining of politic, media, and audience participation.

The second clip that I chose to use is also from YouTube, “Newsroom/ Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner”, and was published by The Onion, which is a satirical news network. This particular clip makes fun of President Obama, saying that he uses his teleprompter everywhere he goes, even while at home. The “broadcasters” inform everyone that Obama had a malfunction while talking with his family and he doesn’t know what to say to them. I feel that the main demographic for this particular clip would be people who are subscribed to The Onion. They are more likely to view the clip than those people who aren’t subscribed to it.

I found this clip relevant to the two different theories I chose, because it shows political satire, and through this, people are expected to know this clip is completely satire, but they still find it entertaining. “Neither that the audience simply follows what the media say. The concept of the active audience is now well established in communication research” (Castells, 2007, p. 241). Both Catells and Jenkins would agree that the audience takes an active role in what they hear and watch through the media. As noted in the first clip, audience members are able to communicate their own ideas for this clip through expressing themselves using comments directly below the clip. In Jenkins’ theory, he states, “More and more consumers are enjoying participating in online knowledge cultures and discovering what it is like to expand one’s comprehension by tapping the combined expertise of these grassroot communities” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 134).

In turn, this clip confirms the theories that the two men have presented to us. People watching the clip obviously know that it is not an actual news program, but rather it services entertainment purposes. Also, most people watching the clip have some form of idea about politics; otherwise they wouldn’t be watching it. It also proves that there are what Jenkins calls, “knowledge communities” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 20), that people participate in. This is easily proven through looking at the right side of the clip, where people can subscribe, specifically, to The Onion. They can get more information through subscribing to the “knowledge community”. By doing this, they can get knowledge through being an active participant.

The last media artifact that I chose to use is also found on YouTube and is titled, “Obama and McCain-Dance Off!” In this clip, Barack Obama and John McCain (and their posses) decide to have a dance off. Each politician and their group does a dance to try and beat the other, and at the end they have a dance off between just the two of them. After they’re done there is a surprise guest (Sarah Palin) who comes in and does her own dance. As with the first media artifact, I believe that the main demographic would be people who are interested in political satire, or those who like a good laugh at politicians.

I chose this particular clip because I believe that both Castells and Jenkins’ theories reveal different points. “It is the symbolic embodiment of a message of trust around a person, around the character of the person, and then in terms of the image projection of this character” (Castells, 2007, p. 242). This can be easily identified because right at the beginning of the clip before any visuals are shown, there is a message reading that the clip is entirely fictional.

This clip shows that both Castells and Jenkins have made valid points about media and society. Right before you actually see anything in the clip, it says that the actions portrayed are fictional. The audience knows that right from the start, that they should not believe anyhing either candidate says or does because it’s not real. Also, Jenkins’ idea of the participatory media is shown. From the getgo, people realize that it is a fictional clip made by a participartory audience. It also shows that politics and media are all around us, and that the participatory audience is able to produce anything that their minds can fathom.

All in all, it’s no surprise that media influences society, specifically politics and society. Castells shows this through his ideas about politics and the media. It is relevant to note his idea of symbolically representing politics in this instance. Considering all of the media artifacts I have chosen are dealing with satire and politics, the messages could very well be ambiguous and read differently from individual to individual. Castells says, “Politics is based on socialized communication, on the capacity to influence people’s minds. The main channel of communication between the political system and citizens is the mass media system…” (Castells, 2007, p. 240). Does this necessarily mean news mass media? Can this also include that of the participatory audience? I believe that the answer clearly includes the participatory audience. It may be hard to say if the particular clips that I have chosen influence the audience watching them. More than likely, they do not, but there is a minute chance that these clips may in fact influence a small amount of society. And with all of the different media watched or read throughout the world, it’s no wonder that politics are quite dependent on the media.

So what does all of this have to do with the “social implications of an information society?” I think it is clear that politics are affected by what is put out in the media, whether it is satire or not. People are being active and participating in media technologies, such as using YouTube to get their message across. It is also clear that people have the advantage of critiquing one another through these different medias by being able to write their own comments and opinions. This shows that technology is ever-changing and isn’t going to stop any time soon. Media can be produced and shown, and is being produced and shown, by anyone willing to show their ideas. As Castells puts it, “The new media politics shows remarkable capacity to innovate, following the steps of the culture of social networking reinvented every day by web users” (Castells, 2007, p. 256). With this idea in mind, people are getting more and more involved with the media, and in turn, becoming more and more involved with politics. I think it is safe to say that upcoming presidential elections and technology is going to be more innovative and creative because of the growing technological age.


Works Cited
Castells, Manuel. (2007). Communication, Power, and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238-266.

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

Mac Ads Satire/Promo #4-‘Sarah Palin. (2009). YouTube. Retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txe0AKEFBY4&feature=channel.

Newsroom/ Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner. (2009). YouTube. Retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQTaWjMoFw.

Obama and McCain-Dance Off! (2009). YouTube. Retrieved November 30, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyT9-9lUyE&feature=related.