Social Implications of the information society
> media
How WE interact with EACH OTHER convergence
participatory
relationships
"We"
> consumers belong to the public
- have different degrees of involvement - the more of an affect it will have on you!
- demographics
ROLES IN MEDIA
-producers
-distributors
-journalists
>>Information belongs to Society
Mediation-Communication Public Politically: If you're here you are part of something
not face to face
effect of face to face
"dumbing down"
deteriorates soft skills
(Playing on WOW improves social skills for people who don't have social skills)
INcreasingly fragmented audience.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Presentation dates
NB: For info on the presentations, see here.
Tuesday, 12/1:
Angi K.
Katie C.
Lacey E.
Thursday, 12/3
Stephanie W.
Amy U.
Leah K.
Tuesday, 12/8
Paige W.
Allison L.
Alison K.
Thursday, 12/10
Ronny M.
Aaron H.
Dylan W.
Tuesday, 12/1:
Angi K.
Katie C.
Lacey E.
Thursday, 12/3
Stephanie W.
Amy U.
Leah K.
Tuesday, 12/8
Paige W.
Allison L.
Alison K.
Thursday, 12/10
Ronny M.
Aaron H.
Dylan W.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday (11/17) Notes
Questions:
Medium = message?
What is power & how does it relate to media?
What is mass self-communication?
What is counter-power?
Points:
Media as agenda-setting
- media as space where power is decided
Politics of scandal
- weakening of credibility in politicians
- distrust of political arena
- voting against rather than for
Power: structural capacity
Counter-power: push-back
Google-bombing, other attempts by horizontal media to affect vertical media
Nation-state is losing ground
- media
- governance
Surveilling internet
Critiques:
Stylistic-douche baggy
Need better examples of mass self-communication
Arguing from doxa
Lumping people into category of "sheep"
Either/or like Boyle, Halleck
Aaron's Media Artifact:
Twix- Get the Girl commercial
- blogging as habit
- mass self-communication
- Jeremy Epstein: 80% blogs should be other people, 20% you
- Entertainment value
- "Just like us" value
Medium = message?
What is power & how does it relate to media?
What is mass self-communication?
What is counter-power?
Points:
Media as agenda-setting
- media as space where power is decided
Politics of scandal
- weakening of credibility in politicians
- distrust of political arena
- voting against rather than for
Power: structural capacity
Counter-power: push-back
Google-bombing, other attempts by horizontal media to affect vertical media
Nation-state is losing ground
- media
- governance
Surveilling internet
Critiques:
Stylistic-douche baggy
Need better examples of mass self-communication
Arguing from doxa
Lumping people into category of "sheep"
Either/or like Boyle, Halleck
Aaron's Media Artifact:
Twix- Get the Girl commercial
- blogging as habit
- mass self-communication
- Jeremy Epstein: 80% blogs should be other people, 20% you
- Entertainment value
- "Just like us" value
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
11/10/2009 Notes on that super cool Sam guy.
QUESTIONS
How do you define a civilization
-religious
-geographic
Why will civilizations clash
POINTS
framing conflict in religions
civilizations in culture identity
historically civilizations where geographically isolated
1992-West at peak of power
-clash on micro and macro levels
CRITIQUES
UN
How is he determining what civilizations are
argument assumes that we've given up
hybridity
extremely broad
is it even possible to identify different civilizations
How do you define a civilization
-religious
-geographic
Why will civilizations clash
POINTS
framing conflict in religions
civilizations in culture identity
historically civilizations where geographically isolated
1992-West at peak of power
-clash on micro and macro levels
CRITIQUES
UN
How is he determining what civilizations are
argument assumes that we've given up
hybridity
extremely broad
is it even possible to identify different civilizations
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Nederveen Pieterse Chapter 5
In what ways are we hybrid?
1. food
1. food
- tacos
- sushi
- pasta
2. Media
- anime
- Dragon Ball Z
- Pokemon
3. Games
-pogs- originated from Hawaii
4. Books (Harry Potter)
5. Cultural Identity
- hyphenated identity ("authentic" or not?)
- lefse
- lutefisk
- hot dogs
6. Sioux logo
- inaccurate name
- for U.S. school
- logo drawn by Sioux artist
7. Holidays
- hybrid to begin with
- imported to U.S.A.
Pieterse Chapter 5
Questions
- relation between identity, class, recognition, and social justice
- effect of one identity on another
- significance of hybridity and boundaries
Points
- good to overcome boundaries
- hybrids as "lubricants"
- "in-betweenness"
- transcending binaries
- hybridity in context of boundaries
Critiques
- clarity
- structure
- makes assumptions for people about who they are
- tables (good critique)
Media Artifact
Racial Draft
- people being drafted as hybrids
- pushing racial boundaries
- words that mark race
- outward signs (food)
- claiming culture/manifestations of culture
Neverveen Pieterse Chapter 2
Terms:
Dialectics-(similar to circuit media model)
Viewers Producers
Sitcoms < - > Sitcoms
Dramas < - > Dramas
Questions:
Points:
Nederveen Pieterse Chapter 3
Questions:
Points:
Critiques:
Terms:
Dialectics-(similar to circuit media model)
Viewers Producers
Sitcoms < - > Sitcoms
Dramas < - > Dramas
- Producers change what they do and viewers change what the want
- Viewers change what they want and producers change what they do
Questions:
- What is the effect of globalization on nations and the idea of "nation"?
- What are the different form of the globalization?
- What is the future of the nation state?
- Uptopia like the global village?
- Fragmentation?
Points:
- Everyone is a migrant.
- Cultural mixing
- Once this happens what happens to identity?
- Tension between maintaining culture and integrating
- International achievements
- constant exchange of information
- Globalization in deep historical context
- contrast between older historical forms and "accelerated globalization"
- History in relation to space
- Space-how we break down geography
- East or West, countries, states, cities etc.
- Our relationship with other olaces
- Nation states are becoming less relevant because now people are talking more about ethnicity than nations states.
- Doesn't define terms
- Playing with language
Nederveen Pieterse Chapter 3
Questions:
- Who belong to a culture?
- What constitutes cultural identity?
Points:
- McDonaldization and culture convergence
- Homogenization/westernization
- Efficiency and control
- Three Theories
- Cultural Convergence
- Cultural Differentiation (clash of civilizations)
- Human mosaic (people keenly aware of differences)
- Hybridization
- Cultural Language-Surface manifestation of culture such as music, food and clothing
- Cultural Grammar-Deep into the culture itself such as the values, traditions and world views
- Cultural language and cultural grammar are directly linked together
Critiques:
- Obvious bias for hybridity
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
11/3/09
PIETERSE
QUESTIONS
POINTS
QUESTIONS
- what is the basis of bonding in collective action
- relationships before modernity & globalization & westernization
- how to differentiate hybridities
- relationships between politics and collective memory
POINTS
- modernization does not equal globalization
- cultural essentialism
- shared set if traits of traditions, cultural and mythology
- hybridity-new practices-weakening of nation-states
- enough french
- clearer definitions/trajectory
- organization by argument rather than theme
- could hybridity lead to a new form of essentialism
Monday, November 2, 2009
Dylan Wohlenhaus-Midterm Paper: Habermas/Jenkins
Contrast of Jurgen Habermas and Henry Jenkins.
Working for a television station a newspaper or a magazine is slowly becoming one of the many ways any citizen can express their opinion. In a society when those were the only forms of medium your voice could be heard citizen journalism and mass political movements are rooting themselves in the basements of the average citizen’s home. Participatory media has to the dismay of politicians, and many news figures exploded with the internet, specifically YouTube and bloggers. In this article I will explore how Jurgen Habermas’ Public Sphere is an open door to participatory media as stated by Henry Jenkins.
The public sphere has come a long way since the early middle ages of Europe. What we now conceder “Public” is a far contrast from what Habermas outlines in his history, writing his article in 1964 a few things have changed but some display an overlap. Jurgen Habermas explains the coming of age of the “public sphere”. It was people in power of a state and politicians; the public are the rulers and make up what the public sphere while the private citizens are just that, private and do not rule. Habermas and Jenkins show a similar pattern in opening their statements. I think Henry Jenkins begins where Habermas left off. Jenkins opens his chapter Photoshop for Democracy by talking about how a new culture was emerging in the public. Television was becoming the main form of medium in the 60’s but “the revolution wouldn’t be televised”. Much like a narrow public sphere mainly consisting of political figures before newspapers, there was a counter culture in which their views and ideas were not transmitted in the main stream media or public sphere. These unheard views cultivated (in the case of Habermas) participatory media like newspapers in like manner Jenkins states folk songs, posters, people’s radio and comics became the counter cultures voice.
Habermas talks about how newspapers revolutionized the public sphere. They became leaders of public opinion and “weapons of political parties” when the public sphere was becoming more widespread. Jenkins and Habermas are both concerned with the issues of how public opinion shapes public policy and political power. Again they are both looking at it in different eras, Jenkins lives in a convergence culture and Habermas is seeing the rise of a convergence culture. Using newspapers as a political took became essential when they became the primary medium. They were tools of opinion. If you were a politician and you were listening to the masses you would pick up a newspaper. They gave people a voice and most importantly in a democratic state politicians or the “public” better listen to the “private” if they wanted to seek re-election. News editors became the dealer of public opinion and not just the spreader of news and current events. Jenkins states points similar. Media convergence and the internet made the political process participatory. In the case of the 2004 presidential election Howard Dean and his staff utilized the power of the internet as a fund raising tool. They also used it to create rallies and listen and learn from what people were saying (much like newspapers coming of age). In each case the public sphere becomes more participatory, no longer having politicians the rich and powerful or the ones who are on television making their voice the only ones heard. The role of participatory politics is Jenkins over arching question, does participatory have implications of having a negative effect on politics? Coming back to Howard Dean, his use of the participatory media was a huge boos for his campaign. But in the end participatory media was also the demise of his campaign. Shouting with passion the video of him in Iowa was all over the internet and photos such as the one in Jenkins’ book of Dean grabbing Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” made people make him out as a joke.
The public sphere is losing itself among the convergence. When Habermas outlines the February revolution in France and the Chartist movement in England, you can see it correlate with what Jenkins says in Fans, Consumers, Citizens. With Habermas, the public body “Lost not only its exclusivity; it lost in addition to the coherence created”. In Jenkins’ case, the Super Bowl ad created by Moveon.org was operating within a political public sphere, more liberal than conservative and it was refused air time by CBS. Well that didn’t make any difference and Jenkins states that Moveon.org had the intention of it being denied. Because of the controversy stirred up on why this ad was refused it was played anyway on media outlets and given wide news coverage. Jenkins states, “Historically networks have refused to sell airtime for issue oriented ads, special interest groups.” My point here is Habermas and Jenkins both agree that the exclusivity of a public body, or the big network three is being lost because of media convergence and the public sphere is just getting bigger, because Habermas’ private sector is becoming a modern era public. The public Vs. The Private sector gap is closing forcing newspapers out of business, network news shows declining in ratings and politicians every move being scrutinized. The mainstream media usually picks up what is online, or user generated. If it’s making waves in society then it’s usually broadcasted through news outlets, again convergence.
Media participation and media convergence have been an inevitable revolution in our society. So many stuck in their old ways are meeting it with resistance that it’s threatening the public sphere was Habermas once knew it. It is both good and bad, in a sense that nothing we really do is private anymore and controlling the message becomes more difficult. Habermas and Jenkins don’t outwardly agree with each other, but if you are able to understand the media revolution that is going on today and the revolution that Habermas has researched, you being to find more similarities than differences.
Works Cited.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.
Habermas, Jurgen. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964).
Working for a television station a newspaper or a magazine is slowly becoming one of the many ways any citizen can express their opinion. In a society when those were the only forms of medium your voice could be heard citizen journalism and mass political movements are rooting themselves in the basements of the average citizen’s home. Participatory media has to the dismay of politicians, and many news figures exploded with the internet, specifically YouTube and bloggers. In this article I will explore how Jurgen Habermas’ Public Sphere is an open door to participatory media as stated by Henry Jenkins.
The public sphere has come a long way since the early middle ages of Europe. What we now conceder “Public” is a far contrast from what Habermas outlines in his history, writing his article in 1964 a few things have changed but some display an overlap. Jurgen Habermas explains the coming of age of the “public sphere”. It was people in power of a state and politicians; the public are the rulers and make up what the public sphere while the private citizens are just that, private and do not rule. Habermas and Jenkins show a similar pattern in opening their statements. I think Henry Jenkins begins where Habermas left off. Jenkins opens his chapter Photoshop for Democracy by talking about how a new culture was emerging in the public. Television was becoming the main form of medium in the 60’s but “the revolution wouldn’t be televised”. Much like a narrow public sphere mainly consisting of political figures before newspapers, there was a counter culture in which their views and ideas were not transmitted in the main stream media or public sphere. These unheard views cultivated (in the case of Habermas) participatory media like newspapers in like manner Jenkins states folk songs, posters, people’s radio and comics became the counter cultures voice.
Habermas talks about how newspapers revolutionized the public sphere. They became leaders of public opinion and “weapons of political parties” when the public sphere was becoming more widespread. Jenkins and Habermas are both concerned with the issues of how public opinion shapes public policy and political power. Again they are both looking at it in different eras, Jenkins lives in a convergence culture and Habermas is seeing the rise of a convergence culture. Using newspapers as a political took became essential when they became the primary medium. They were tools of opinion. If you were a politician and you were listening to the masses you would pick up a newspaper. They gave people a voice and most importantly in a democratic state politicians or the “public” better listen to the “private” if they wanted to seek re-election. News editors became the dealer of public opinion and not just the spreader of news and current events. Jenkins states points similar. Media convergence and the internet made the political process participatory. In the case of the 2004 presidential election Howard Dean and his staff utilized the power of the internet as a fund raising tool. They also used it to create rallies and listen and learn from what people were saying (much like newspapers coming of age). In each case the public sphere becomes more participatory, no longer having politicians the rich and powerful or the ones who are on television making their voice the only ones heard. The role of participatory politics is Jenkins over arching question, does participatory have implications of having a negative effect on politics? Coming back to Howard Dean, his use of the participatory media was a huge boos for his campaign. But in the end participatory media was also the demise of his campaign. Shouting with passion the video of him in Iowa was all over the internet and photos such as the one in Jenkins’ book of Dean grabbing Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” made people make him out as a joke.
The public sphere is losing itself among the convergence. When Habermas outlines the February revolution in France and the Chartist movement in England, you can see it correlate with what Jenkins says in Fans, Consumers, Citizens. With Habermas, the public body “Lost not only its exclusivity; it lost in addition to the coherence created”. In Jenkins’ case, the Super Bowl ad created by Moveon.org was operating within a political public sphere, more liberal than conservative and it was refused air time by CBS. Well that didn’t make any difference and Jenkins states that Moveon.org had the intention of it being denied. Because of the controversy stirred up on why this ad was refused it was played anyway on media outlets and given wide news coverage. Jenkins states, “Historically networks have refused to sell airtime for issue oriented ads, special interest groups.” My point here is Habermas and Jenkins both agree that the exclusivity of a public body, or the big network three is being lost because of media convergence and the public sphere is just getting bigger, because Habermas’ private sector is becoming a modern era public. The public Vs. The Private sector gap is closing forcing newspapers out of business, network news shows declining in ratings and politicians every move being scrutinized. The mainstream media usually picks up what is online, or user generated. If it’s making waves in society then it’s usually broadcasted through news outlets, again convergence.
Media participation and media convergence have been an inevitable revolution in our society. So many stuck in their old ways are meeting it with resistance that it’s threatening the public sphere was Habermas once knew it. It is both good and bad, in a sense that nothing we really do is private anymore and controlling the message becomes more difficult. Habermas and Jenkins don’t outwardly agree with each other, but if you are able to understand the media revolution that is going on today and the revolution that Habermas has researched, you being to find more similarities than differences.
Works Cited.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.
Habermas, Jurgen. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964).
Final paper
(NB: this description will be subject to minor modifications over the next week or two.)
The format of your final will be similar to that of your midterm. I'd like you to write a paper/blog post of about 2000 words addressing the following prompt. Your paper/blog post will be due (which, as before, means uploaded to the blog) by December 15 at 1:00pm.
As before, your paper/post should take the form of a well constructed essay. Please be sure that your thesis is clear and that your examples are well chosen. Please also be sure to employ a consistent citation format -- you need to include a bibliography (even for texts assigned in class) and clear in-text citations. (See here if you're unsure of a format to use.)
Prompt:
All of the authors we have read this semester have tried to describe the role of technology in society. They have addressed the implications of technology at a personal level, a regional or national level, and a global level. We in turn have evaluated their descriptions by applying them to various media artifacts, including TV programs, YouTube clips, Facebook pages, and even a feature-length fan film.
In this paper, I would like you to choose one last media artifact and use at least two of the readings from this class to describe it. I would encourage you to choose theories that offer complementary perspectives on the artifact, in much the same way as you chose theories for the midterm that made up for each other’s lacks. I would like you to address three main questions: (1) What do the theories reveal about the artifact? (2) What does the artifact reveal about the theories? In other words, does the artifact help us evaluate the theorists’ claims by confirming or contradicting their assertions? (3) What general conclusions can you draw about the “social implications of an information society”?
To do well on this assignment, you should be sure to:
• describe the artifact: what is it? when and where did it appear? who is the likely or intended audience?
• contextualize the artifact: what is the social significance of your artifact? why is it worthy of scholarly attention?
Presentation (15–20 minutes, with time for discussion afterward):
During the last class sessions, you will be presenting your media artifacts and describing what the theories you’ve chosen reveal about it. I don’t expect your papers to be finished by this point, but I to expect you to have a coherent, thoughtful argument to present.
The most effective presentation format will follow these lines:
• media artifact (clip, webpage, etc.) - 5 to 10 minutes
• contextualization - what is the artifact? why is it socially significant and worthy of scholarly attention?
• theories you have chosen to apply
• answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 above
• time for discussion, questions
The format of your final will be similar to that of your midterm. I'd like you to write a paper/blog post of about 2000 words addressing the following prompt. Your paper/blog post will be due (which, as before, means uploaded to the blog) by December 15 at 1:00pm.
As before, your paper/post should take the form of a well constructed essay. Please be sure that your thesis is clear and that your examples are well chosen. Please also be sure to employ a consistent citation format -- you need to include a bibliography (even for texts assigned in class) and clear in-text citations. (See here if you're unsure of a format to use.)
Prompt:
All of the authors we have read this semester have tried to describe the role of technology in society. They have addressed the implications of technology at a personal level, a regional or national level, and a global level. We in turn have evaluated their descriptions by applying them to various media artifacts, including TV programs, YouTube clips, Facebook pages, and even a feature-length fan film.
In this paper, I would like you to choose one last media artifact and use at least two of the readings from this class to describe it. I would encourage you to choose theories that offer complementary perspectives on the artifact, in much the same way as you chose theories for the midterm that made up for each other’s lacks. I would like you to address three main questions: (1) What do the theories reveal about the artifact? (2) What does the artifact reveal about the theories? In other words, does the artifact help us evaluate the theorists’ claims by confirming or contradicting their assertions? (3) What general conclusions can you draw about the “social implications of an information society”?
To do well on this assignment, you should be sure to:
• describe the artifact: what is it? when and where did it appear? who is the likely or intended audience?
• contextualize the artifact: what is the social significance of your artifact? why is it worthy of scholarly attention?
Presentation (15–20 minutes, with time for discussion afterward):
During the last class sessions, you will be presenting your media artifacts and describing what the theories you’ve chosen reveal about it. I don’t expect your papers to be finished by this point, but I to expect you to have a coherent, thoughtful argument to present.
The most effective presentation format will follow these lines:
• media artifact (clip, webpage, etc.) - 5 to 10 minutes
• contextualization - what is the artifact? why is it socially significant and worthy of scholarly attention?
• theories you have chosen to apply
• answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 above
• time for discussion, questions
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)