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.
I believe you raise a good point about they users of certain sites, in particular YouTube. I would argue that the potential for users to come together instead of further fuel stereotypes and isolate ourselves into cliques. Right now, Youtube is just a mesh of people thrown together in a single spot. I want to use the salad vs. mixing bowl analogy but that doesn't seem quite right because a salad can still taste good. Most of the comments (there are exceptions) do not taste good. I hope I'm getting my point across though; everything is just not working together to further "advance" how all the videos and people work together.
ReplyDeleteI would also argue though that in a way the in and out almost style that videos are being uploaded can have some good significance to them. For instance, if a topic is relevant than a show like South Park can take the issue at hand and compact it fast and make a show the next week when the issue is fresh instead of later, when the flames have died down. This way people can get more excited or intrigued about a topic instead of saying "eh theres nothing I can do" after the fact.
You pose a good critical perspective by opening your entry by suggesting the importance of considering the negative implications of things largely seen as positive. I like your point about how sites engage with reality, but not necessarily in the right ways. As your solution is accurately described, diversity that is representative of the consumer base is a solution to creating a virtual world that is representative of the physical world.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Nathaniel.
ReplyDeleteJenkins mentioned the political potency of the viral video, and how crucial parody entertainment is as a promoter of political dialogue. With mountains of information growing everyday, it's important to prompt conversation about an issue when it's still on everyone's mind. The proverbial ADD of digital natives makes it nearly impossible for a a significant discussion of issues to take place among people our age. I think this is one of the major obstacles to the political involvement of youth today (it is for me, at least).
I think you made some pretty good points. Some of your arguments, especially those about YouTube, are similar to the opinions I came up with while reading this chapter.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet in general, and social media communities in particular, have the potential to incorporate potentially everyone. Anyone, of practically any religion, gender, race, political affiliation, etc. can contribute to YouTube and other sites. However, it seems that white males in the 18-34 demographic still dominate these communities. It's not surprising that anti-minority rhetoric has found a place on the Internet.
Furthermore, these communities tend to be incredibly fractured: there are several sub-communities on YouTube that cater to specific identities. While some may argue that this is evidence of diversity, I worry that it is actually a case of self-segregation. I may be exaggerating the extent of the problem, but I am glad that Jenkins took some time to address it in his book.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would like to draw a parallel here that everybody is free to pick apart and attack if they wish. The use of YouTube as a platform for advocacy has similarities to delivery technologies and media. YouTube seems to be replacing older delivery methods of advocacy (whether it be "Letters to the Editor" or pitchfork and fire torch touting mobs). However the advocacy is still the same. Ugly.
ReplyDeletePerhaps this is why Plato thinks so little of democracy.... but anyways, I think that Jenkins is spot on when he says that we are still far short of such idealizations. How we get there is a question that I just don't see any easy answer to.
That's a good point, Chinchin; the media has changed but the mean-spiritedness hasn't. Yay for evolution. :/
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that serious conversation will take place in an unmoderated space like YouTube. Anyone can post anything, good or bad, offensive or not, productive or destructive. And many of the commenters are trolls, just there to annoy the life out of people-- which they do very well.
No, if we are looking for serious and productive conversation, we'll have to look somewhere besides YouTube. Preferable somewhere with good moderators who will throw out the jerks.
Something I'd like to point out - YouTube and CNN.com both seem to have excessively stupid and stubborn users making up a solid 90% of the comments despite the requirements of a registration process. However, websites such as 4chan.org require no registration, do not use usernames, have very little moderation, and in many cases comments made often will not even exist for more than 4 hours. While 4chan discussions can be far more chaotic and immature than CNN.com or Youtube sites, serious discussions seem to actually have far more tact (and certainly better spelling/grammar) than anywhere else on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to understand this particular "order from chaos" phenomena, but the fact that there are no records kept and that people have to be actively invested in conversations, starting them over and over once they disappear just to hold a discussion may in fact influence how people approach a subject - irrelevant comments disappear quickly and without fanfare, but smart comments keep a discussion afloat for a few more precious minutes, unlike CNN and Youtube, where one can make a brain-dead comment and know it will be there for all eternity for others to argue or try to discuss.
It's certainly something to think about.