Web of Empowerment(?)
This week’s readings discussed Web 2.0, focusing mainly on convergence and what I would like to call empowerment. The authors would have you believe that the convergence that has taken place on the Internet has empowered the user. I think there are some small problem with this empowerment thing, however.
First, I want to take a quick look at convergence. Fagerjord describes convergence as “combinations of letters, sound, and still and moving images” (p. 294). That’s a pretty simple definition, but it is also seriously lacking. Fagerjord limits convergence to design and technology, but it’s more than that. The term does not simply refer to combining old media in new ways; it also includes the combination of ways and modes of thinking. As Jenkins says, “our media environment is marked by a proliferation of differences” (p. 155). Convergence is how the combination of media works together with media consumers to create differences in thought and action.
Fagerjord later defines rhetorical convergence, which emphasizes “how different styles and sign systems are combined into complex texts and thus also complex significations and reader selections and processes of semiosis” (p. 307). To be perfectly honest, this sentence didn’t make any sense to me. But my best interpretation is that rhetorical convergence adds to standard convergence by emphasizing significations and selections. I think this is a fair assessment of how convergence acts rhetorically – the combination of media and the resulting differences in thought will lead to specific actions.
I do not, however, view convergence and rhetorical convergence as separate entities. This probably stems from my belief that convergence already involves the media consumer, they are participants. Fagerjord seems to view them simply as recipients. In fact, he goes so far as to say that the influence of users does not necessarily contribute to convergence, but rather differences in thought lead simply to every different form of web content as a different media. He says that different “uses create patterns of writing, of distribution, of consumption, and of economy that make them different media” (p. 314). What happened to convergence? This is divergence, and I would argue that there is little on the web that would indicate that this is so.
Having expressed my issues with Fagerjord’s definition(s) of convergence, let’s move on to the Empowerment Web. Both Hardey and Jenkins write rather extensively about how much more <lt>power</lt> the user of Web 2.0 has than earlier web users. To a certain extent, I think this is true. First, though, I want to point out where I have problems: Hardey starts off by saying that there is a divide in which “those who are unconnected to the Internet are further socially and economically marginalized” (p. 867). And then, on the very next page, he says that while “the digital divide (however defined) may still be with us it has been quantitatively transformed since the 1990s by the growth in the availability of broadband” (p. 868). He is essentially saying that the spread of broadband has diminished the importance of the digital divide, even hinting that it might not even be a factor anymore. It’s never mentioned again in his article. Hardey seems to think that since the people he is studying does not include the marginalized unconnected that they must not exist anymore. While he is accurate in describing the empowerment of his subject, he ignores the divide that is in fact made more severe by broadband, not eliminated. It would be fine to ignore it if you ignore it completely, but to mention it and then dismiss it shows a certain level of selective (if not intentional) digital blindness.
I also take issue with Jenkins’s insistence that Pop Cosmopolitanism (PC) will lead to some widespread global understanding of diverse cultures. While he acknowledges a “distorted understanding”, Jenkins claims that PC is a “first significant step toward global consciousness” (p. 170). While it may be a first step, I do not see it as significant. Watching Dragon Ball Z does not give me any insight or increased understanding of Japanese culture. Instead, I see Western culture created by the Japanese in attempt to appear Japanese and therefore appeal commercially. Because, after all, Japanese culture is “cool”, right? The elements of Japanese culture that can actually lead to increased understanding are, for the most part, firmly located on the fringe of American culture. So, I don’t believe that any significant step has been taken toward cultural understanding. And with no significant step, there is no empowerment of those users that actually do embrace other cultures. In fact, they are almost de-powered by being relegated to the fringe and made to feel like outcasts.
So, after 795 words about what I don’t agree with, what exactly do I agree with? I actually pretty much agree with everything else in the Hardey and Jenkins readings. Hardey says that Web 2.0 provides users with “a new degree of agency in constructing their engagement with resources and others” (p. 869). He goes on to describe how blogs and “mashups” redefine the way that we interact with our environment. While he focuses on city residents, there is no reason why this wouldn’t apply to rural bloggers as well. At one point, Hardey states that “non-digital technologies and spatialities do not disappear but rather persist and are interwoven in new accounts and representations” (p. 873). Essentially, bloggers interact with the environment differently. For many, their geographic location comes to define them. Because of this, they embrace that identity and are empowered to promote and improve upon the location. Hardey says that bloggers are “interested in constructing a narrative in which their lives are situated within the city” (p. 875). Suddenly, users do not simply exist in a location; they bring the location into their private realm and therefore become part of it. As a blogger, I have the power to reshape my physical environment to more closely reflect who I am. My pictures, videos, and written stories are all an effect of, and an act upon, the city in which I live. What an empowering ideal.
Jenkins also empowers bloggers. He says that they are able to “create order from informational chaos” (p. 180). He also says that they have the ability “reframe … issues for different publics and ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard” (p. 181). I think this is evidenced by the examples that Jenkins provides, but also by the discussion we had way back in the day about Baudrillard and Engelhardt. The bloggers are able to turn the radio around and respond. Finally, spray painting Ham Sandwich can have a larger impact.
I am also a big fan of Jenkins’s idea of the interactive audience. This is very closely related to my paper topic. Jenkins claims that fans were once a “powerless elite, unable to alter the series content” (p. 138). In Web 2.0, however, the fan has become empowered. Jenkins describes how the creator of Battlestar Galactica interacted with fans prior to the production of his show. You may also recall how fans of the series Jericho were able to get the show renewed although its ratings were in the tank (it was subsequently re-cancelled). Fans are empowered by their numbers and the ease of organization. To a certain extent, however, this empowerment is an illusion. As Jenkins states, it “would be naïve to assume that powerful conglomerates will not protect their own interests” (p. 136). I believe, and Jenkins hints at this, that the conglomerates have protected their interest by embracing the fans and working them into their marketing strategies. Jenkins discusses viral marketing, which is only a small piece of the puzzle. There are so many ways that companies are immersing their fans into their products that expand on the fans’ desire for new ways of knowing. Jenkins states that “the new knowledge culture is enlivened by multiple ways of knowing” (p. 140). So, what we are seeing is companies making more and more of an effort to provide multiple ways of knowing: the more ways they can provide, the less of an impact other ways of knowing might have. Whatever the outcome of the struggle to control multiple ways of knowing, the fan WILL have extra impact. The Web 2.0 user WILL be empowered.