Apps Culture

While searching for an article to do this week’s blog post, I discovered the Pew Internet article on “the rise of apps culture.”  I found it especially intriguing because it went into so much detail regarding the users of cell phones in general as well as users of wireless Internet and apps.  The article discusses the number of (over 18) adults that use apps in great detail in relation to age, gender, race, education, and income.  The number of apps average users have, how often they download apps, and how often they use those apps are also topics explored in this article. 

I think it says a lot about our culture that 35% of adults with cell phones have apps.  As the purpose of cell phones has gone from voice calls to texting to Internet access and beyond, apps have arrived to flesh out the cellular world.  A whole host of new software has arisen that is designed specifically for your mobile phone.

The part of the article that I found the most intriguing was the section discussing how frequently users downloaded apps.  According to the article, the most frequent apps users were not the 18-24 group (29% of this group user their apps multiple times a day) but 25-34 year olds (44%) and those 35 years and older (44%).  The younger apps users were much more likely to say they used their apps for less than half an hour a day.  This was very surprising to me, because I would have expected younger groups to use apps more often than older groups.  Further down in the article, however, it states that 25 and up adults are more likely to use apps to improve what they are currently doing, finding a place to eat, shopping, and at work.  Young adults are more likely to use them while socializing with friends or while they are at school.  Older adults use apps for more practical purposes, while younger adults use them for more recreational or social purposes.  I think this must be why adults use apps more often during the day.

Picture Test

Testing inserting pictures into my blog...

Also testing linking them to a website...

S/R 1 - Convergence Culture

Jenkins begins his novel with an introduction to the concept of “convergence culture” and establishing that there is a major shift occurring in the relationship between producers and consumers.  He continues by discussing reality television and the tensions it creates between these two groups.  First, he discusses the “spoilers” of the show Survivor.  He details both what the process is and uses it as an example of collective intelligence and the changing relationship between the producer and the consumer of media content.  Then he examines American Idol mainly from the viewpoint of the media industry, with a focus on their thoughts and method of changing their relationship with the consumer.  Continuing from there, Jenkins looks at the movie The Matrix as an example of transmedia storytelling.  Jenkins defines transmedia storytelling and shows how it is a product of the redefinition of the relationship between producer and consumer.  He then moves on to discuss how producers deal with their consumers adopting their intellectual property as their own, like how Star Wars fans tinker with George Lucas’ fictional universe to realize their own fantasies.  This section of the novel also shows how fans revitalize older folk culture through new mass culture.  Jenkins then looks at the two struggles surrounding the Harry Potter phenomena.  The first struggle is between the fans, who think they have the right to modify and create content related to Harry Potter, and the studio (Warner Brothers).  The second is the struggle between conservative Christian critics and teachers who want the books in school because they think the books will help kids learn.  He then shifts from popular culture examples to political examples about how convergence culture has affected politics, with a focus on the 2004 presidential election.  In his conclusion, Jenkins returns to his main claim that 1) convergence culture represents a shift in our relationship with the media 2) that shift is reflected in popular culture 3) the skills we gain here can help us in many areas like school, work, and politics.  In the afterward he addresses further how the political process is merging with popular culture by talking about the 2008 election. 

The issue of literacy is something Jenkins brings up a lot in this novel.  It is of particular concern in chapter five in both conflicts surrounding the Harry Potter movies.  In the first case (with the fan writers online), we can see that the issue of literacy is no longer just about being able to read and write.  It now requires that an individual can create and express themselves through other media.  Jenkins also argues that participating in fan fiction improves the other two components of literacy.  This occurs mainly through the writing, because there are many ways that authors get feedback on the sites: through other writers on the site or through systems set up to help critique newer writers and get them on the right track.  The second issue is mostly concerned with students’ ability to read.  Teachers think the Harry Potter books should be allowed in school because they know kids will read them, and anything that gets kids to read is good.  It is also easier for kids to go deeper into the analysis of something if they are interested in it.  I think both pro-Potter sides need to converge: by applying the methods used by online fan fiction communities, teachers can not only improve children’s literacy but allow them to have fun while they do it.  If schools were to model some aspects of learning how to write after fan fiction forums, kids will have some control over what they create, they will have an easier time evaluating their peers’ work, and it gives them a sense of independence in their writing that will make them better writers. 

Downsides to a Digital Democracy

In the last chapter of the novel, Jenkins comments on more recent events that occurred since the book was published, mainly the upcoming 2008 election.  It discusses how politics and cyberspace have continued to interact in new ways, like the CNN/YouTube debate and political parodies, as well as many “downsides to a digital democracy” (290).   I was very interested in this section of the Afterward because I enjoy investigating the negative effects of things that are usually considered largely positive.

Jenkins begins this section by reiterating some themes from this chapter, like the validity of more “informal” forums and participants for political debate and the use of parody as a serious means of political discourse.  He then goes on to say that while the potential is strong for a participatory culture to “serve as a catalyst for revitalizing civic life,” we still fall short of realizing those ideals (290).  The first reason he gives is that an open platform, like YouTube, has no guarantee of diversity.  Sure, in a best-case scenario, everyone is going to work on their own to top what the collective group has come up with.  However, there is highly likely chance that the “mechanisms for user-moderation” obstruct the expression of minority perspectives and hide content that is “unpopular” or “unconventional” from view (290). 

The second reason Jenkins gives for his argument is that the speed with which these videos are put on the Web can undermine both pedagogical and activist goals.  As a result, consumers who are always “looking over their shoulders for the next new thing” are having short and superficial conversations instead of serious political discourse.  In other words, “the user comments posted on YouTube fall far short of Habermasian ideals of the public sphere” (291).  Then Jenkins reproduces a blogger’s parody of the CNN/YouTube debates that associates YouTube with, “mangled syntax, poor spelling, misinformation, and fractured logic” rather than politically self-conscious or an appropriate form of citizen discourse (291). 

The final way in which Jenkins supports his argument is through discussing the often racist, sexist, and xenophobic humor online parodies often embrace.  He states that the inclusion of this kind of humor “further discourages minority participation or conversations across ideological differences” (291).  In doing this (and in a much more explicit way than television ever could), the people that produce the parodies are falling short of the “ethical spectacles” advocated by Duncombe: “A progressive ethical spectacle will be one that is directly democratic, breaks down hierarchies, fosters community, allows for diversity, and engages with reality while asking what new realities might be possible” (292).  Many of the videos on YouTube do the opposite of what Duncombe advocated: they promote traditional authority, they preserve gender and racial hierarchies, they fragment communities, discourage diversity, and “refuse to imagine any kind of social order other than the one which has long dominated American government” (293).

I agree with Jenkins that the current state of affairs falls far short from those idealizations set forth by people like Habermas and Duncombe.  The ease and speed with which people can upload content onto the Internet causes lots of problems similar to the parody of the YouTube comments.  Several of Duncombe’s ethical spectacles might be met on some fronts, but not on others.  Sites like YouTube do allow for diversity, but that could be any degree of diversity.  Most of the content is still going to be controlled by the most dominant social group, no matter what site you’re on.  These sites also engage with reality, but not always in the right ways.  The CNN/YouTube debate comments parody is an example of this: these people are engaging with the real world, but misinformation is common and they are only spreading it.  In order for these sites to meet the goals set forth by Habermas and Duncombe, they must focus their effort on creating a truly diverse community, engage with an accurate reality, and fosters a community by not alienating minorities with racist, sexist, or xenophobic humor. 

Cybersubculture Report

For my cybersubculture report I really wanted to compare one of the newer blogging site with sort of an "old standard."  So I'm going to study Live Journal along with Daily Booth, a photoblogging site where the user takes a picture of themselves and adds a caption every day to share their lives with others in the community.