In his book, Convergence Culture, Professor Henry Jenkins postulates about the implications of a culture of convergence, “a paradigm shift … toward ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up participatory culture” (254). As Jenkins explains throughout the book, this new, complex relationship has many implications. In the case of a devoted base of fan “spoilers,” the Producer of a television show, Survivor, was forced to try to stay just ahead of the group in order to keep the secrets of his show. He pushed back, though, planting fake evidence for spoilers to find and creating clues within the show (47). Jenkins notes that this new culture of the bottom-up pushing against more traditional forms of media can move from these niche communities toward politics. We can, he argues, be involved not only in communities of collective intelligence for purposes of entertainment, but also to “push back” and exert political power. He mentions and ponders Pierre Lévy and his ideas about democratization and the power of the people leading toward a sort of utopia (246). The idea that the meaning of “literacy” is changing is also a theme in Convergence Culture. In order to be an informed viewer of the movie The Matrix, one would have had to cross media platforms to anime, video games, and blogs in order get the whole story (96). This involves a new demand for participation by the consumer. In order to be involved in online chat rooms and in discussions, one is expected to know what they can say and do and how to find information that is collected online. In addition to all this, consumers are now being marketed to more efficiently than ever before, because in participating (and gaining power) through participation, we are also opening ourselves to easy access for those who would use our enthusiasm to advertise to us (60). This is all a part of the ebb and flow that comes with the “push back” from each group.
The most interesting and widely applicable question Jenkins posed was about the democratization for which this “convergence culture” allows. He considered to what degree the powers-that-be could be using people and their imagined sense of power and to what degree participatory culture truly allows power to be had. In a way, Jenkins bought in, referring repeatedly to Pierre Lévy, whose idea of an “achievable utopia” seems to fascinate Jenkins and shape his thinking throughout the book. The idea is that we can achieve a sense of perfect participation that transcends not only from a niche talking to members of its own group about the chances of someone getting “kicked off the island,” but into the political realm, including both the governed and those who govern. A key example of why this would be beneficial (whether or not it’s what Lévy or Jenkins really mean by utopia) is the story of the “Snowman” from YouTube taking on political candidates. A human, a person who would be a constituent, of sorts, of the President of the United States, made this video, but if he had done the video in his normal voice, as himself, it would not have been nearly as successful. As it turned out, Snowman scared politicians to death. All of a sudden, in a political debate for all the world to see, they were having to answer questions directly from citizens -- not only questions posed by citizens, but those linked with a face (only in one case was it a snowman) and a voice, and a YouTube profile.
To me, this is an excellent example of convergence culture allowing the masses to “push-back,” as Jenkins mentions. A utopia is not when all citizens have information and then end up believing in and asking the government to do all the same thing. Rather, from what I can tell, convergence and participation work best when users bring in the information they have already gathered, take in a little of what the collective has to offer, and begin to engage in the conversation for themselves. Perfection, then, isn’t clear cut. It’s messy. But in a way, it’s beautiful. We haven’t achieved this utopia -- some groups and voices still aren’t part of the conversation -- but in a way (and I’m really glad of this) we’re much closer to this ending than to one of a homogenous, powerful citizenry.
No comments:
Post a Comment