Week 11: Hardey, Jenkins, Fagerjord
Hardey's (2007) piece brings to mind many issues we discussed earlier this semester, such as how our relationship with our physical surroundings changes as we rely more and more upon upon the internet for information. We've explored how social networking sites are involved, but we've also looked at mapping technologies, such as Google Maps and GPS systems, some of the foci of Hardey's article. He looks at how the real and virtual influence each other as Web 2.0 provides us more information on our surroundings and the people that live there: "The city is reformed through this interweaving whereby 'physical settings and virtual venues will function interdependently, and will mostly complement each other within transformed patterns of urban life'" (Mitchell, 2000, p. 155, cited in Hardey). He adds, "This 're-mediation' may witness a greater clustering of people with others that share similar characteristics, networks, and preferences" (Hardey, 2007, p. 880).
I can definitely see how our relationship with the cities we visit and live in is altered with all of this information at our exposal, but the info is certainly convenient. For instance, when moving to a new town, traditionally people would not pick an apartment complex or other new home without first visiting it, meeting the staff, checking out the neighborhood, etc. But now you can just rely on information on the net without checking things out in person, including reading reviews on the internet but also using mapping programs to see the area. I can see what part of town its in and see what's around it. At the same time, most of the info I would get from the internet is info I would have gotten by looking at the apartments the old fashioned way. The basic point I take from the article is that Web 2.0 technologies reshape our interactions with the place we live--what restaurants we try, what bars we go, what places we visit.
An important issue Hardey hints is the control of this information. Hardey proposes that who controls this information could be a problem: city council members, for instance, may not want video images of the less attractive parts of town available. Or, as Hardey brings up, people may be concerned with their privacy, as video images of their homes are available to anyone with the internet. My initial reaction to such concerns is, well, too bad, this is all publically accessible information anyways. If I want a picture of what your house looks like, I can drive down your street and take a picture and acheive the same effect as seeing it on Google Maps. What's different now? Though I think I can understand concerns people might have. The issue is the amount of info available to anyone about their homes (and about them) and the access everyone has to it. The more information of you that is available to others, the more information there is to use against you in ways you can't anticipate. But at the same time, we all want access to as much info about places we could move and the people we may live by.
There's a lot of things I could talk about with Jenkins' articles--I'll limit myself to a few. In "Interactive Audiences" Jensen (2006) discusses how Web 2.0 allows fans to dialogue amongst themselves about the stars, games, teams, etc. they adore and even interact with and influence the targets of their fandom. First, I like the comparsion he makes between 60s "alternative media cultures" and the groups formed on the internet today. You can actually see this at work with what I like to call "enraged sports fan" sites [cheap use of my 701 paper topic begins here]. There are a few site for my hometown pro football team, the Cincinnati Bengals, that are devoted to criticizing the ownership of the team. From looking through the sites, you can see they really view themselves as an alternative sports media outlet: they're not only critical of team ownership but also the local and national sports media (like ESPN) that either a.) just talk about teams that are winning (usually not the Bengals), taking attention away from the problems in Cincinnati, or, more importantly, b.) do discuss the problems on the team, but only focus on the players and coaching, not the ownership that is, in their eyes, ultimately responsible for poor player personel decisions. Such sites defy the either/or categorization of jammers vs. fans Jenkins posits: the sites contributers work to subvert local and national sports media, but these contributers are also real fans of the team that are just fed up.
I enjoyed his discussion in "Pop Cosmopolitanism" (2006). A questions sprung to mind, though. One: how much of this growing market for Japanese entertainment/culture in America has been developing long before Pokemon, Power Rangers (which I didn't even know was based off something from another country), and Anime's popularity here? He mentions martial arts films from the 60s, but certainly there was a lot more of this cultural convergence happening earlier than the time he's looking at. I think a huge factor he leaves out is video games: how can we not look at the rise of Nintendo and Sega in the 80s as vehicles for bring Japanese culture to children? Japanese companies have not only put out the most popular systems for years by have also comprised the majority of heavy-hitting third party software developers for games (e.g. Konami, Capcom, Namco, etc.). Their culture manifests itself in various ways in games; role-playing games in particular have always had anime influened character and setting design. I think Jenkens misses a big opportunity to explore how the video game industry, from the 80s on, has paved away for the interest in Japanese culture to which he devotes much of his chapter. Another thing Jenkins could explore more is the particular American audiences that are consuming these products of Asian culture, though I'm not sure what implications he'd find here. He mentions that Americans may be engaging in dilletantism (sp), but doesn't really talk about which Americans these would be. For instance, he talks about growing American interest in anime, yet the vast majority of teens I've encountered, I would guess, don't know what anime is or know but aren't really interested (note: I am in no way bashing anime, just making an observation here). He does bring up the Matrix, which had a lot more universal appeal among a younger audience; at the same time, I know a lot fans of the movie that just like the film as a great science-fiction film and action movie; they really don't think about any eastern influence behind the film (for better or worse). This seesm important to study, though I'm not sure why yet: I'll come up with that later.
Just to mention Fagerjord's article briefly here (we did look at in 702), I agree that with Melissa that it seems important to consider new theories for new media technologies. I don't believe we need new theories if the old ones work just fine, but I'm not sure that's always the case. So far, we've been doing a great job of applying traditional rhetorical concepts to new media in 702: they're still relevant today.