Tutorial 3: Public opinion, Greenwashing and the policy response.

This week’s tutorial we covered 3 areas which our group will record separately

1. Rhetoric  and Public Opinion – Drawing on Balnaves Chapter 7 – see post from Alex
2. Propaganda and Persuasion  – Drawing on Balnaves Chapter 7 – see post from Mohammed
3. Miller and Rose – a further discussion of key concepts in the Miller and Rose Reading pp 181-191

Part 3 : Miller and Rose (pp.181– 191).

Lastly we examined some key terms from the Miller and Rose article further in an effort to contextualise, broaden understanding  and help us with the conceptual framework of the Policy assessment.

Political Rationale and Problematising.

There is a relationship between political rationale and problematising which is explored in Miller and Rose. However first if we define

Rationale: The reason for an action or belief

In Miller and Rose: “Problematic of government may be analyzed, first of all, in terms of their political rationalities, the changing discursive fields within which the exercise of power is conceptualised, the moral justifications for particular ways of exercising power by diverse authorities, notions of the appropriate forms, objects and limits of politics, and conceptions of the proper distribution of such tasks among secular, spiritual, military and familial sectors.” (p. 175)

Problematising:

‘Government is a problematizing activity: it poses the obligations of rulers in terms of the problems they seek to address. The ideals of government are intrinsically linked to the problems around which it circulates, the failings it seeks to rectify, the ills it seeks to cure.” (p. 181)

That is the function of government on one level is to find and identify issues, so that they can position themselves as the institution responsible and capable of determining and applying the solution. The act of problematising becomes their political rationale for doing something, namely enacting policy.

This involves the use of Discourse– being a way of making things thinkable through language around a certain field of study, and/or area of problematisation. Language (including inscription devices – more later) and discourse are tools which drive particular bodies and programmes along.

Therefore, what are some of the steps involved in breaking down how an issue has been problematised?

• Breaking down the issues; how are certain issues viewed and portrayed – the moral political position
• Dialogue/demystification – what issues is this policy talking about
• Who is making the statement
• Why is it being made
• Where does it come from
• Other statements made previous – what is the context, has there been an event or series of events that have contributed to this problemitsation
• Who does this benefit

‘The ideals of government are intrinsically linked to the problems around which it circulates…..have measured the real against the wanting’ (p.181)

Often the governments values, their moral or political position, can be seen in the way that they problematise an issue. The act of defining something as a problem or an issue implies values, moral and political, Our job is to analyse what this position is. Language, Inscription devices and Discourse are often employed to make this position seem normal and just. This can include research around the topic, even while we may agree, it is our job to analyse the Language, Inscription devices and Discourse and uncover any assumptions and value positions and make them explicit where they are just implied.

Further, another inference in this passage is that the process of government has been to create conceptually an ideal world in which these problems don’t exist. This is what we are supposed to strive for. This ideal world is a reflection of their values, political and moral. However, this ideal world is one which is rarely realised however, and very different to the reality we face.

Miller and Rose argue in fact, that the process of government therefore is as much about this failure to realise the ideal as really changing things. After all, if governments actually did fix all the problems, we wouldn’t need them anymore, right?

Programmes of Government : A planned series of events

In Miller and Rose: “The programmatic is the realm of designs put forward by philosophers, political economists, physiocrats and philanthropists, government reports, committees of inquiry, White Papers, proposals and counterproposals by organizations of business, labour, finance, charities and professionals, that seek to configure specific locales and relations in ways thought desirable…” (p. 181)

What this passages is saying is that Programmes Of Government  are not just the Policies, but all the concepts or inscription devices involved which help us break down the problem into manageable parts.  These programmes ( if we look at the above list, much of this is research driven by a field of study or discourse) are driven along by theories and discourses themselves,  as they provide the measures, indices and Jargon which often create and define potential issues. These can be called Inscription Devicies. These together with language used in Policy documents are important to examine in order that we can reveal the values implicit in the policy document.

Inscription devices can be conceived of as “Government has inaugurated a huge labour of enquiry to transform events and phenomena into information: births, illnesses and deaths, marriages and divorces, levels of income and types of diet, forms of employment and want of employment. (p.185)

‘Inscription itself can be a form of action at a distance. Installing a calculative technology in the enterprise, in the hospital, in the school or the family enjoins those within these locales to work out ‘where they are’, calibrate themselves in relation to ‘where they should be’ and devise ways of getting from one state to the other’ (p.187). This means that inscription devices not only imply some sort or norm, but engage us by getting us to compare where we are in comparison and subsequently try to strive for the ideal

 Mike pointed to the below passage as a way of demonstrating that theories are Programmes of Government. It also points to the notion that programmes are not discreet packages of knowledge, but are evry much tied up in wider discourse. This is how government engages with and utilises knowledge.

  “In a very real sense, ‘the economy’ is brought into being by economic theories themselves, which define and individuate a set of characteristics, laws and processes designated economic rather than, say, political or natural. This enables ‘the economy’ to become something which politicians, academics, industrialists and others think can be governed and managed, evaluated and programmed, in order to increase wealth, profit and the like” (p.182)

Technologies:

Technologies are Strategies and techniques making programs operable. Or more generally as Matt explains, The methods and tools that a society has developed in order to facilitate the solution of its practical problems

In Miller and Rose: “…governmental technologies, the complex of mundane programmes, calculations, techniques, apparatuses, documents and procedures through which authorities seek to embody and give effect to governmental ambitions.” (p. 175)

Technologies are various and include; programs, stats, documents and procedures into place; An example might be the measure of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of a nation. See below passage for the ways in which figures can impose a value system or political rationale on what is being measured

“figures transform the domain to which government is applied. In enabling events to be aggregated across space and time, they reveal and construct norms and processes to which evaluations can be attached and upon which interventions can be targeted’ (p.186) 

In addition to those 4 key concepts, rationale, problematisation, Programmes and technologies we looked at Powerful actors, Centres, and the absence of faithful relays

 Powerful actors (p.184)

‘A powerful actor, agent or institution is one that, in the particular circumstances obtaining at a given moment, is able to successfully enrol and mobilise persons, procedures and artifacts in the pursuit of its goals”. This is useful way of thinking about who are the stakeholders for the policy you are analysing and more importantly which stakeholders have the power  to affect what the policy will be, and how it will be monitored.

Centres:

 There is a tendancy within government for powerful actors programmes and technologies to create a centre. “A ‘centre’ can only become such through its position within the complex of technologies, agents and agencies that make government possible. But, once established as a centre, a particular locale can ensure that certain resources only flow through and around these technologies and networks, reaching particular agents rather than others, by means of a passage through ‘the centre’. (P .189)

 Further- The enactment of legislation is a powerful resource in the creation of centres, to the extent that law translates aspects of a governmental programme into mechanisms that establish, constrain, or empower certain agents or entities and set some of the key terms of their deliberations…. Programmes and strategies formulated at the centre may lead to attempts to establish regulatory or negotiating bodies, and may lead to more or less autonomy being granted to other aspects of the bureaucratic web of government such as Departments of State or Local Authorities.(p.189-190)

 Legislation defines who is at the centre, who has the power to enact, enforce or discuss the problem. However the centre does not directly control the action, the entities. This is due to the absence of faithful relays.

Not everyone, policy actors and stakeholders have the same purposes. A legislation or policy is not faithfully relayed, rather it is used or not used as a means of achieving particular stakeholders own purposes.  See page 190 for more

Some perceive Identity as a trait, which is arbitrarily ascribed in a social process. This process often sacrifices Individuality in favour of a trait which defines someone as belonging to a group.

Furthermore Identities are not singular and static, individuals have identities.  During groups these identities as ‘Given’ or ‘Inherited’ Identities and Chosen identities. Given identities are often based on corporeal factors, such as race, gender and age. Chosen identities are those based on cultural or ideological choices or preferences. Identities are not neutral and are performed in a social space.  Identity therefore is a process, a continual, fluid and evolving one. The point is each of these identities are partial, they don’t describe the whole person and there is always a part of someone that is not covered by identity. This part of the person is excluded from society.  This is the personal and intimate aspect of yourself. I would argue this exclusion will only continue if you maintain silence around  that part of yourself, that as soon as you articulate this part of yourself, you formulate a corresponding identity. Identity is formed through communication, and this is where this is vital for media studies. To consider how we articulate and identify ourselves in the media and how the media identifies us. One can argue that Media meditates our identities.  The primary identity which the media ascribe us as a mass is the identity of a consumer. After all, they have to sell things to continue producing media. Newspapers for example traditionally ascribed national and local identities to its readership.  Broadcast media aside, how to other forms of media such as telecommunications play out with our Identities. I am different on the phone than in person?

One point of During’s I found interesting is that these social identities are limiting and enabling. Limiting in that being identified as part of a group you are automatically ascribed all of their traits, even if they don’t all apply to you, but that identities are the frameworks for our lives, they are what connects us to society. He argues ‘it is impossible to exist in Society without a proper name, without being located within a set of identity granting institutions…. this is not inescapable social structure’ P 152. Indeed the above definitions  describe identity and the process of identity in a liberating way. You can see why this appeals to many, in that is allows a certain amount of choice in how we perform our identities, and even if many of them are given identities, its liberating in the sense that these needn’t be the dominant or primary identities we employ. I see this fluidity of identity in my own life all the time. Right now one of my primary identities is a Uni Student. It is ascribed to me each time I am on campus, each time I write, whenever anyone asks me about my studies and so on. This is a new identity.  Last year, when travelling, I found our national identities often become a dominant identity. Somehow when we leave the country, being identified as Australian becomes really important. Recently starting a relationship, I was ascribed and chose the identity of Girlfriend. All these identities have baggage because they act like signifiers and people read different meanings into them.

During locates the rise of Identity politics in the 60s and 70’s. Identity Politics surrounds those marginalised groups who were excluded by their difference from the Universal White Heterosexual Bourgeoise Male. The Civil rights movement, women’s movement, gay rights all involved the use of Identity politics. They were similar in that all these movements were trying to find a social space and voice and political agency in which to ‘assert and struggle for wants and needs that they have by virtue of their marginalised identity’ (p .148). For During identity was formed though struggle.

During goes on however to outline some of the problems encountered with identity politics namely that; they tend to erase differences in and of a group; they essentialise identity; they tend to exclude those who don’t fit the current definition of the group identity; they tend to overlook the real and actual conditions of how we experience our identities in the real world, identity politics are accused of being highly theorised; Identity politics can lapse into rigidity of definition and this can undermine the cause and finally Identity politics tend to ‘invent’ legitimising histories. During argues that Hybridity theory was the academic response to these charges. During states ’Hybridity theory thinks of identity not as a marker, stable trait shared across groups, but as a practice whose meaning and effect is constantly mutating as its context changes’ (p.151). For During though this concept does not move past identity politics sufficiently. He criticises of Hybridity theory of being too theoretical and utopian and lacking a practical point in which we can relate identity to our real experiences. During proposes that infact struggle can be this entry point. He demonstrates how identities whether collective or individual forge during struggle and then often fade after the battle has been won. Here we see the fluidity and dynamics of identity as described above, but in relation to a real life scenario of struggle which is a central feature of so many who have employed identity politics.

I appreciate what During is trying to do by bringing identity politics back to earth and out of highly conceptualised theory. I agree the criticisms, but for me, sometimes these highly conceptualised theories are really playful and liberating. I like the idea I can play with aspects of my identity and that it is fluid and dynamic. But this is probably During’s point, I come from a relatively privileged background where i have had little experience of being marginalised as a result of one of my identities. To me it may be folly, but to many its real gritty and no joke.

During, Simon. ‘Debating Identity’ in Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction, Routledge: London: 2005, 145-152

These concepts are relevant to Media studies, as they offer a way for us to analyse messages media’s convey. The argument which is crucial to Shirato and Yell, is that meaning is constructed. In other words ‘meaning was produced, and the world was read, understood and seen, in terms of how signifiers were related to each other in Semiotic systems’ (p.24). Use of language is the method by which we construct meaning and how we read it also is not a passive process but an ideological one. We infer our values, our position and context on what we read, just as the authors implicate theirs in the messages they create and disseminate via media. The authors argue meaning is therefore relational. I would expand on this as meaning is also cultural.

Shirato and Yell proceed to critique Saussure and establish that while his insights have been extremely useful , they often deny the motivation for using particular language. They argue instead our choices are often politically motivated.  (p. 21-22). This description of the process implies that the political motivations are quite overt and explicit, however I would argue that often the political motivation is quite oblique and normative and this is precisely the reason Saussure embarked  on this mission, to uncover implicit power machinations within language. Indeed the authors acknowledge the power of language when they reference Nietzsche with the concept that ’the production of meaning is always, first and foremost, a sign of power.’ (p.22).

Shirato and Yell apply these concepts and explore the production of meaning via the use of binaries. They conclude via an analysis of a the concept of man and woman, demonstrated meaning are often constructed  by reference to other meanings which themselves are also not neutral. Its rather a circular process, however don’t let this undermine its importance.  For me, the point that Shirato and Yell fail to make explicit in relation to binaries, is that this way of constructing meaning is in itself a cultural method of meaning construction. Binaries and polemics have been employed in western thinking so pervasively that we often are oblivious to the way in which they manipulate.  Binaries are a way of construction others, a process whcih Edward Said covers in detail in his seminal book Orientalism. I am frustrated by the way much of the world is ensconsed in polemic thinking. It’s dangerous. Something that is not black for example is not necessarily white, and whilst many of us understand this, we still employ polemic thinking which allows us to infer all sorts of white characteristics on the non black position. We do this because firstly we are taught to contrast differences from an early age, and its a seemingly convenient way to do this. I think always of Sesame Street’s  One of these things is not like the other things . Whilst Sesame street is a favourite, and this is quite insipid in its context, if we consider the lyric in a wider context  it is about identifying difference and ostracizing.

Think about all the binaries we employ, man/woman, strong /weak, east/west, north/south, civilized/savage I could go on and on and on. It’s maddening, but more importantly it needn’t be necessary. The study of semiotics and how meaning is constructed allows us to unpack such loaded constructions of meaning.

Finally Shirato and Yell proceed to demonstrate  how meaning is produced and is politically motivated and also not natural by an analysis of an article by PP McGuiness on the debate of settlement or invasion of Australia by Europeans. Whilst I personally take great delight in any attempt unpack Paddy’s dangerous arguments, he is an easy target. Given though the introductory context of this chapter, we may as well start with the screamingly obvious, but I would point out that Paddy pieces are not positioned as reporting or journalism, but rather as comment.

Shirato, T and  Yell, S “ Signs and Meaning” Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2000, 18-133

Firstly Haddon begins by asking us as potential researchers to challenge what we consider communication. Rather than focusing on the act itself, he argues we should consider the broader practices of communication. This is important for Haddon because it affects how we conceptualise communication and subsequent claims about society. These communication practices which otherwise might be perceived as superfluous, or at the boundary of the ‘actual’ communication may in fact greatly affect the communication experience.

The second factor Haddon asks us to consider is the continuity of (communication) practice between media. New devices or uses of devices he argues are often extensions of what has gone before, ‘the use of new tools is grafted on to the practice of the older ones’ (p 10). This ‘continuum of uses’ a terms which he borrows from Millerand (et al, 1999) can help explain patterns of use. I found his example of studies which showed early TV broadcasts were based on the principles of Radio Broadcasting interesting, and this reminded me of how much early cinema and photography had a ‘staged’ quality, where the audience viewed the film or image through the 4th wall exclusively. The innovators of cinema were those who pioneered new practices and techniques which advanced or abandoned these adopted constraints of the previous medium. One famous example being the Lumiere Bros famous L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat (The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station, Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (1895), which shows a train pulling into a platform at 45 degrees, and was so revolutionary and real to audiences that it was reported many people jumped out of the way of the screen as the train approached. The point is here, that there is not really a natural continuum implied in the media devices or technologies, it is our practice of use that media which provides the perceived continuum. This is important for media studies as this continuum pof practice shapes our experience and everyday lives.

Thirdly, Haddon asks us to challenge the displacement theory of media studies which posits that new media displace use of older media. Instead he argues as the media options, especially those surrounding communication become more varied, we need to shift our conception away from media audiences which connote passivity, to ‘being a manager of communications’ (p.12). This implies a developed strategy of the part of the manager, which is far from passive. It also accounts for the fact that our repertoire of communication media is expanding, and our decisions on which media to employ given any number of social, personal or financial constraints, internally and or externally imposed, to name just a few, are becoming increasingly complicated. One example I found particularly resonate, was the case study of an individual who tried to adopt email into their repertoire of ICTs and abandoned it, because she did not get the outcome she expected. In my working life, whether as a PA managing executive diaries, or as a Distribution and Purchasing manager with staff of 20, an increasing part of my roles was managing relationships with individuals and companies internally and externally. I would often use email, as a way of confirming a phone or verbal conversation, putting it on record, to ensure both parties agreed what was decided and had a record of the conversation. More importantly, despite my own preference for email, I would recognise that certain individuals had a preference for the phone or face to face communication over email, and I would be more likely to get the desired outcome if I communicated on the this way. Part of being a manager, was managing my communication, choosing the medium which delivered the desired outcome most efficiently. Just one note on convergence, have you ever not been able to sleep because of all the things you had to do the next day? This used to happen to me a lot. I tried writing lists but I would never remember to take them to work. Finally one night, at 3am, realising my phone (aka alarm clock) was under my pillow, I picked it up, dialled my work line and left myself a voicemail reminding me what I had to do that day. Convergence enabled me to communicate effectively with myself. The continuum of practice was writing a note, but the note became digital audio.

The last aspect Haddon asks us to consider is the long term dynamics of our communication repertoire. This is harder for the researcher to capture, as the moment when a possible dynamic fails or succeeds is often so fleeting you can miss it, and if it does succeed the way in which the communication practice can so quickly become normalised and domesticated can obscure the obstacles it overcome in the process. However it is the factors that lead to these changes over time that are of importance socially, the types of ‘changes in the balance of practices’ (p.19), are the ones we should be aiming to uncover. I feel he does not explicitly state why this is important but I surmise that this type of research is broadly located as Interpretivist research, with the aim of understanding and describing meaningful social action.

Haddon, Leslie. “Research Questions for the Evolving Communications Landscape” in Ling, Rich and Pedersen, Per, Eds. Mobile Communications: re-negotiation of the Social Sphere. London: Springer- Verlag, 2005, 7-22. Week 8 Blog

He demonstrates networks predate the digital era, and that the analysis of social networks has been at the heart of sociology, in understanding social interaction and the production of meaning. He adopts a somewhat Marxist perspective and argues that networks are deliberately obscured by the superstructure of hierarchical bureaucracies as the organising principle of society.

Castells then hypothesises that the reason networks have been overlooked  is also due to the fact their success has been limited by technology. He recognises historically in the pre digital era, at some point when they become too large, networks become inefficient enough to undermine their goal. The lag or time gap in the feedback loop in the communication process amounted he argues to ‘the system amounted to a one way flow of information and instruction’ P. 5. Ultimately therefore networks became a tool of power, ‘of the vertical hierarchies that shaped the history of humankind’ (p. 5). Castells argument here works well with Couldry’s concept of the myth of the mediated centre. Castells argues that true networks don’t have a centre. I would argue that powerful players position themselves as central regardless.

It is Castells view that only the mature industrial era has produced communications technologies that have ‘increased the networks ability to introduce new actors and contents in the process of social organisation’, thereby demythologising the notion of the centre. It was only a mature industrial society that could deliver the technology that could deal with autonomous nodes, and the masses of communication required between each and nodes, not just between each node and the centre.

Castells argues the mature industrial era is therefore responsible for a new information Paradigm he calls informationalism, that is ‘the power embedded in information technologies, at the heart of the new technological paradigm’ (p7).  The network society is the foundation of our society.

In  the second exert ‘Space of Flows and Timeless Time’ these two social forms of time and space characterise the network society.

The space of flows is defined as the ‘technological and organisational possibility’ of these practices occurring at the same time without being in the same place. P 36. This he describes as a gradual de-coupling of time and space. The space of flows is located in the nodes. Nodes and electronically powered communication networks ensure time-sharing practices.  

Castells elaborates on these points and reaches the conclusion that there is not a specific culture defining network societies, they are global and encompass diverse and varied cultures. It integrates multiple cultures just as capitalism has been seen to do. Castells uses a historical materialism approach and argues each network materialises in a specific context or cultural setting. There core of the network society is not to be confused with a centre, rather its core is in its global nature. Its core is that network societies exist globally in time and in structure. He describes this beautifully as a ‘double movement of commonality and singularity…. Specific cultural identities become trenches of autonomy’(p.38)  The importance of your race, nation, locality can stand up against the hegemony of dominant cultures.

Castells puts it to us that these unique cultures/networks have the capacity to communicate with each other via the protocols of communication that exist in a network society. It is this communication that defines a network Society. ‘Without them there is no society, just dominant networks and resisting communes (p39)’. Sharing and creativity for their own sake is the culture of the network society. This destabilises modern relationships between knowledge and power.

Castells’ key hypothesis is  ‘The culture of the network society is a culture of protocols of communication between all cultures in the world, developed on the basis of a common belief in the power of networking and of the synergy obtained by giving to others and receiving from others’ p 40. This he argues is not a utopia or a diffusion of capitalist ideologies. Rather it is social evolution achieved through a process of sharing which can eliminate ‘ancestral fears of the other’. This is a very hopeful claim.  Ancestral fears of the other form the basis of so much conflict in our society. These fears of otherness Edward Said (Orientalism  1978) claims are socially and culturally constructed fears of the east constructed by the west. That being said, these fears are still pervasive and not culturally unique to an east west conception of the world. These types of fears exist throughout the history of humanity and cultures and continue in this era. I wonder though, given Gillian Fullers exploration of mobile Networks and the Cronulla riots, just how Castells hope for a synergy of sharing that will eliminate such a fear will really manifest itself. It seems that networks can also be employed for malicious purposes. I don’t want to criticise Castells, I think his hypothesis is quite beautiful in its hopefulness for humanity. I really hope he is right.

z2176404

In this article Nightengale aims to investigate the role of convergence in the cultural and social conditions that characterise our world which she describes as digitised.  She points out that contrary to assumptions that convergence would result in a mono-media world, instead there has been a dramatic expansion and diversification of media platforms devices and activities.  (p. 19)  

 Convergence has been more traditionally defined as ‘a word that describes technological, industrial, cultural and social changes in the way media circulates within our culture’. Nightengale further defines Media Convergence as ‘a situation in which multiple media systems co-exist and where media content flows fluidly across them’,  this fluidity implies it is not a static relationship that is established once and maintained but rather a process ’a series of intersections’ (P20). It is characterised by flow of content across media platforms, Cooperation between media industries, the search for new media financing that fall at the interces between old and new media and the migratory behaviour of media audiences. Furthermore she references Fortunati who sees convergence as ‘unifying in the digital form but divergent in proliferation of specialised content’ (P25).

Internetisation- mediatisation is a referenced concept devised by Fortunati. It can be described as a process  where the internet is taking on characteristics of broadcast media and broadcast media takes on characteristics, ‘where the internet is mediatising itself and the media is internetising itself.’  P 24.  It is quite a neat concept which demonstrates convergence in action, but Nightengale argues the extent to which this process occurs relates to how convergent media platforms become.

Disintermediation (a concept attributed to Evans and Wurster 2000), is a process described in two ways, the traditional process and the radical process. Traditional form is when a new competitor attacks the established media form, such as broadcast TV, by offering greater reach and less richness. Typically a lower cost version which is not superior. It does not destroy the original media, but it takes apart the market in its traditional configuration. Audience reach is attained with trade off in richness or quality of content. She argues now we are witnessing more radical disintermediation where the competition mostly from the internet, who pose a direct threat in that they are able to offer greater richness and reach simultaneously.  To counter this Broadcast TV has adopted the process of internetisation. With examples of Tv programming such as Big Brother, she demonstrates that Broadcast TV’s attempts at internetisation are not comprehensive. Instead the internet is used as an add-on an enhancement and the original broadcast platform remains the primary platform.

Internetisation and Mediatisation are a reflexive process which alter content of the media platforms. In examining the mediatisation of the internet, Nightengale argies true convergence is being hindered by the content problem. One aspect of the content problem related to the mediatisation of the internet is what Nightengale describes as the increasing commercial nature of voluntary affiliation. Much activity undertaken online, social netwwork sites included, demand affiliation through acceptance of terms of use. Through this ‘voluntary’ affiliation we become  aligned with the brand of the site and our online identity becomes branded and commercialised. Nightengale argues this ‘consumer shaping’ of social networking is a key aspect of the mediatisation of the internet (p.33) and goes on to argue this will segment the ‘online audience into two discreet groups, social networkers vs online shoppers, content creators vs users’. Nightengale allued to the politics of the ‘have’s’ and ‘have nots’, the literate and the illiterate in terms of content creators and content users. However I would argue this is neither new nor unique. There has always been a politics around those who write and those who read, particularly sarrounding issues of class and power. Nightengales point is with merit, as I agree we need to move away from this assumption that the internet is a virtual place  of ultimate freedom and democracy, its a worthy argument to point out that the digital world which has been heralded for the democracy of self publishing for example, is not free from existing power structures of society at large. In fact Ito’s (2005) argument that existing power geometries shape media use is directly applicable. Nightengales conclusion is put in broad terms, namely stating that there exists a relationship between convergence as a process and social and cultural responses of media industries, users and consumers, but this general statement appropraite perhaps for a text book chapter is less effective, Ito’s argument really packed a punch for me.

Nightengale did however prompt me to consider how my online identity is affected by voluntary affiliation. I would consider myself a content user primarilily as much of my initial activity was shoping and my online identity was simply a consumer identity. However using facebook, twitter, returning to university  and having to do this blog, has expanded my on line identity. Am I therefore now a content creator? I am still a consumer though, these categories are not discreet in me and i find Nightengales creation of two distinct categories problematic. Identity is not singular, defined and static, but fluid and plural. The question is how is my online identity defined by others. I mostly have not thought about this identity as it served a purpose, it’s existence barely even acknowledged. People I communicate with online already knew me, this alter identity did not exist. But now Uni makes me talk with people on line that I have never met. How do they imagine me? How does Facebook imagine me? At this rate I am not bothered if I am a series of numbers amongst millions. This virtual identity exists in my head, every time I think or feel something that is who I am. This  idenitity  is still just a zygote, but she grows with every conversation. Writing whether published (online) or not is like a conversation with yourself, it is gestation of identity.

Signing off Z2176404

Ito’s paper is a research paper addressing Mobile phone usage amongst Japanese youth. It is framed in the discussion of mobile technologies and mobility as creating freedom, in particular freedom from control of institutions of the home and school and urban environment. Ito chooses to focus on how forces of place both regulate and condition mobile phone use amongst Japanese youth.

Ito explains Japanese youth in particular, are not afforded freedoms of even young adults, such as privacy, as living conditions in particular space, make the home an inappropriate place to meet friends and lovers. In addition there is a cultural discourse which places youth as a category which requires regulation and supervision of behaviour. This anxiety about regulating youth behaviour has increased with increased mobile phone usage amongst young people, as mobile phone use was perceived to embody bad social practices in Japanese culture.

One of the key concepts he uses is Power geometries of place. Place is defined by Ito as a hybrid of the social, cultural and material. Including technology architecture and geography. P122. He references Massey on mobility to define space in terms of mobility by the power relations that shape it. The power of space he is particularly interested in is the power politics of institutional spaces such as the home, school and urban environment.

Ito’s Key argument is that Mobile phone use is structured by power geometries of place, the home, school, urban environments particular public transport and mobile virtual spaces. Instead of arguing that mobile technologies and their use by young Japanese people are about breaking free from the social norms and constraints of supervision of these locations, he demonstrates through his study of Japanese high school and college students, that their use whilst often circumventing some of the limitations of place, also at the same time adhere particular institutional logics aligned to the politics of place. This is a valuable argument for destabilising the perceptions of youth behaviour as being unruly.

Ito observes that at home, mobile phones are used to circumvent the supervision of parents of their communication on the home phone, and attain privacy which many Japanese youth do not have. However at the same time many youth also recognise it is inappropriate to use the mobile phones for voice calls or messaging during meal time for example, thereby demonstrating that mobile phone use still adheres to institutional logic of the home environment. This he argues is not a substantive challenge to the power geometries of the home.

Similarly in school where mobile phone usage is officially banned, this is circumvented by the use of messaging and email and silent modes. However the students again realise it would represent too great a challenge to engage in voice calls during class. In his study he observed many students engaged in messaging with other students in the same class, as a result he argues messaging has come to replace note passing and meaningful glances of previous generations. Ito argues that this use of mobile media in stealth mode is a challenge to the common hierarchy of communication on the traditional class room format , where students are assigned the passive listener role, however he demonstrates limitations of the politics of place are merely circumvented , possibly challenged but the power geometries are not substantively re-shaped.

In urban environments, which are particularly conducive to youth social contact, he points out that constrictions on voice calls on public transport were implemented after the increased youth uptake of mobile technologies. Like in schools youth would use mainly silent communication forms which are considered unobtrusive. Throughout his observations of mobile use in these 3 institutional spaces of Home, school and public transport, Ito observed that Japanese youth had a tendency towards Ongoing light weight use . This is described as casual status checks and comments throughout the day. One particularly interesting aspect was that he observed it was common for youth to message each other to check availability for a voice call, to check if they were under the constraints of a particular place. In addition ongoing lightweight use enables youth to enjoy co-presence with lovers and friends, thus overcoming distance and privacy issues.

However the downside of this continued lightweight use, Ito observes is that youth feel pressure to be constantly available for this type of communication. Observed amongst his research participants was an established convention of returning messages within 30 minutes. If this was not done it was considered rude. As a result youth would often send messages which indicated the ‘door had been closed’ such as good night, or I am having a shower etc. This virtual space of mobile communication also has it power geometries established by social expectations, where pressure to be available resulted in a kind of tethering to the virtual space. This was the most interesting aspect of his paper for me.

I know that I often want to resist this tethering to the virtual space by closing my virtual door. Cancelling voice calls, logging out of social networking sites when people i don’t want to talk to initiate communication are some of my techniques. Its overwhelming sometimes and i actively resist the pressure these technologies create by attaching me to the network constantly. I want to unplug and hide in my own little universe. Whilst I feel some guilt, it is not as pervasive as described in Ito’s article. But maybe this is because I did not have a mobile phone as a teenager and neither did most of my friends, so this social conventions of the virtual space are less strong in our particular community. However adaptations such as texting to check availability for a voice call is something i do, but it is less about restrictions of school, but restrictions of work. However in the case of my boyfriend, he will often not return messages until he gets home. Whilst this may be about the power which his work place has over him, I actually think it is more about not wanting to be overwhelmed and being deeply involved in his work, so his late returning of messages is a way in which he compartmentalise his life. Maybe my generation’s social expectations around mobile communication use are a little more rigid along the lines of appropriate times for communication, than youth who have grown up using mobile technologies.

Anna Rigg Z2176404

Hartley is addressing the concepts of mediation with particular attention to Time and in turn the time/space axis. One of his key concepts is that of the “Wavelength” he defines the experience of time in wavelengths, High, Medium or low. He seems to use “frequency” and “wavelength “ interchangeably however. All public writing have frequencies, and he further positions news /journalism as high frequency public writing. Within Journalism there are varying degrees of frequency. High covering the instant, hour, day week and possibly month, Mid as Month, season, quarter and year, and Low as generation, century, millennia. This was particularly informative to how I experience media in my everyday life.

The first time i considered this concept was not an everyday occurrence , but 9/11 highlighted the frequencies of media for me. When the twin towers fell I was on a plane at JFK airport. We saw the second tower fall from the windows of our plane which had been grounded and stuck on the runway for more than an hour. As soon as we could get off the plane, everyone was anxious to find a TV, to know what was happening, to obtain some meaning. However as we had been stuck on the runway for some time, the instantaneous live and continuous coverage had been going on for some time. I kept feeling like I had been watching for ages and I still did not know what was happening. I felt like they were talking about all this stuff I had missed out on. But in this type of news event there is an expectation from news media that you will watch continuously and that you will create your own meaning from the pieces of information, because the frequency of the telecast is the vital thing, not the provision of journalistic integrity.  Only some days later did we start to see some sort of coherent summary of facts or theories,  a possible meaning. Some years later I began to consider frequencies of images. I actually saw one of the towers fall, but for the life of me its hard to recall that image, the one I am stuck with is the one we all saw over and over again. I remember the official image. The frequency of that media image has altered my memory of my real time experience . My perception of the event is now the same as yours.  This mediation of the event has created a community of people with shared experience.

By examining the different wavelengths or frequencies circulation of news media in particular, Hartley demonstrates that there has been a shift towards high frequency journalism. He argues this shift can be exemplified by shift from modernism to postmodernism. This argument employs his concept of a gatherer technology, which establish new “we” communities via new technologies of the public that are post-modern: commercial, private, volatile, migratory, dispersed and aimed at cultural identities not well served by the public sphere – for instance, the young, women, ethnic minorities and “foreigners” .” p263 .

Hartley furthers his argument by locating democracy in terms of citizenship and sovereignty in the realm of space the nation. The assumption here is that the nation is primarily spatially defined by its borders and location, a modern definition. It has been well argued among many Post modernists academics nations are a social constructs. However, Hartley argues that the what the technologies of democracy (print media, political parties and parliaments) did was to create the sense of the nation, a space of citizenship.  He uses the concept of Hunter technologies to describe one of these democratic technologies “News media hunt out the alien and criminal among the population” P 263.

These arguments for me only started to have bearing once I also considered other frequencies in various public contexts as he describes them, such as frequencies of Knowledge, Meaning. This is where I start to understand the value and power we ascribe to different knowledge’s, and the different meanings we make from there. Here it starts to get post modern. His final argument is that looking at the shift in journalism from spatial (national) to temporal (network) communication , we need to consider time in terms of his concept of frequencies of media . These frequencies determine the shape of the public and their identities of individuality and community. There has been a shift from Territory to community, Rights/Duties to ethics/Practice, National unity to individual responsibility. This shift shows that democracy is not dying, but may have only migrated to a postmodern era, a faster, time-based one.

The concept of nationalism has always been dubious to me because it has always appeared so constructed .  I have never felt particularly patriotic and fervently resist being told to feel sorry for Channel 9′s “little Aussie battler” and therefore appreciative of their renovations, just because it is rooted in a concept of the Anzac and mateship, fundamental concepts to the creation of our nation after ww1. I prefer the post modernist approach where my individual responsibility, ethics and practice can form the commonality of the community in which I identify myself. I will define my nation thank you very much.

]]> http://annarigg.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/911-mediated-through-frequencies/feed/ 0 annarigg http://annarigg.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/is-michael%e2%80%99s-use-of-foucault-an-example-of-media-studies-10/ http://annarigg.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/is-michael%e2%80%99s-use-of-foucault-an-example-of-media-studies-10/#comments Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:18:57 +0000 annarigg http://annarigg.wordpress.com/?p=14 ]]> Michael, Mike. “Disciplined and Disciplining co(a)gents: The Remote Control and the Couch Potato” In Reconnecting Culture, Technology and Nature: From Society to Heterogeneity. London: Routledge, 2000, 96-116.

Michael addresses the concept of embodiment and disembodiment of bodies with technologies, with particular focus on the Couch Potato and the Remote Control, which he argues to be co(a)gents.

The first concept he addresses is that of embodiment and disembodiment. Michael identifies disembodiment as the trend of considering technologies as having the ability of disembodying humans “to circumvent the body, to attach directly the wills of humans to what technologies have to offer.” In regards to defining embodiment he states the definition most useful for him is “an understanding of embodiment as a communal: a sense of the body as a thoroughly historic and cultural entity” p. 97. Michael argues that these are not two separate concepts but rather inter-dependant ones. “The ethos of disembodiment is always undermined by the ‘return of the body ‘ ”. p 98 .

An implied key concept that Michael employs is that of the co(a)gent. The key application of this concept is that Michael positions the Couch Potato and Remote Control as co(a)gents.

Michael develops his argument by considering the relationships between these concepts. He argues and demonstrates by examining the relationship of the Remote Control and the Couch Potato and the event of the loss of the remote control in particular, that embodiment and disembodiment are not singular and separate, but mutually dependant and implied. To achieve this Michael proceeds to explore the discourses on Bad and Good Couch Potatoes and how they inform this embodiment/disembodiment process. These discourses of Health and Economics as well as that of Culture he demonstrates all seek to re-establish the body as a cultural identity.

Michael’s argument is that essentially the remote control is a technology that is conditional to the existence of the Couch Potato. They are co(a)gents in the process of disembodiment and embodiment. “Couch Potatoness” as a condition it is not only facilitated by the remote control but dependant on it. However by examining the loss of the remote control, he argues that the periodic loss of the remote control makes the Couch Potato active and consequently strips the couch potato of the defining quality of inactiveness, thereby restoring the body. In other words the disembodiment process is undermined and yet defined by periodic re-embodiment. Couchpotatoness subsequently is defined by its the occasional loss of its co(a)gent, the remote control and the subsequent activity of the search for the remote control.

Whilst I appreciate the ways in which Michael examined the informing discourses on good and bad Couch Potatoes, and more so the theory that re-embodiment is implicit in the process of dis-embodiment, I found myself really cranky after completing this reading. Why is his definition of co(a)gent, which is seemingly so central to his theses that it is in the chapter title, only implied? (possibly it’s in another chapter) .

I found myself asking why does he bother referencing Foucault and establishing this tenuous link to his concepts of policing and surveillance? Is it to add some sort of academic authority to his argument by referencing some of Foucault’s theories, who according to Gauntlett’s definitons of Media Studies 1.0, we could argue is considered a fetished expert?

Maybe I find these links tenuous because the chapter assumes the reader has previous knowledge of Foucault. I then find myself asking why in an introductory course are we given readings that pre-suppose a knowledge of Foucault?Without explicitly addressing his concepts within the course itself – as far as I can gather from the outline, one could argue academia ostensibly seeks to exclude some students and maintain the academic status of the teachers and writers. The assumption of knowledge of Foucault can itself be considered an example of his own concept of Power Knowledge. Maybe its as simple as I don’t understand…better go read some Foucault !

In this introductory chapter to his book Media Rituals: A Critical Approach, Couldry aims to outline his position, or approach to the field of Media Studies. It is classic in the sense of introductions, as he achieves this by defining key concepts (or assumptions as they may be) within the field of Media Studies (and associated fields such as Sociology and Anthropology) and by a discussion of some earlier and some contemporary positions in these fields. His stated aim for the book I consider is to answer the question “How are media involved in contemporary societies holding together, if in fact they do” p.5

His starting point is to consider Durkheim’s theories of ‘Ritual’ and its relationship to social integration, as he argues Durkheim position is seminal, and he then moves to critique various positions on Durkheim within the approaches of Functionalism, Structuralism as well as Postmodernism, notably Foucault’s discourse on power.

The result is that he positions his approach as a “post-Durkheimian  and Anti-functionalist) account of Media” P.19 He describes this as using a “Wider Angled Lense” p.1

Couldry’s 3 key concepts in this chapter are based around his definitions which are achieved by his critical assessment of the above positions.

The “Myth of the Mediated Centre” p.2 is a typically Postmodern and Foucouldian concept because it is concerned with the discourse of power. Couldry’s concept is namely that central media feeds us the notion that it provides a centre to our society a social reality, and that much of the power of ‘the media’ as that monolithic force, is derived from this myth. This myth is supported by the concept that the audience or recipients of media are passive, and that media providers are experts. In the same way in which governments achieve power by the process of centralisation, media can adopt the same process and participants can facilitate it.

Couldry notes that “Media Rituals” defined as ‘any actions organised around key media related categories and boundaries’ p2  point to the media’s ‘presumed abilty to represent the social whole’ because of the way they can naturalize the concept of a centred society.p14

“The ‘ritual space’ of the media” The space of media rituals is a metaphoric term used to refer to the ‘interlocking mass of practices that must be ‘in place’ for there to be ritual action oriented to the media’p.13. This key concept here is a space in which there are intersecting processes at play, across multiple sites. Rituals and processes are not discreet or mutually exclusive. Indeed, Couldry argues for this concept because ‘we can only grasp how some media related rituals make sense as rituals actions, if we analyse a wider space’ P.13

For me Couldry’s method is a deconstructionist and post-modern approach, which mind boggling as it can be to decipher all that Baudrillard, Delleuze and Foucault, (Jeez – its pretty dense and challenging reading at the best of times, let alone an introductory chapter in many people’s first week of uni – talk about the deep end!)     is in fact valuable because it encourages us to look at rituals outside the practice alone, to critically evaluate the context(s) of what we are studying and to ask, who is saying what and why?  If we were not to examine power inherent in all these questions, then we would be rote learning, passive receivers of education rather than critical and academic thinkers. If we can participate in our education in this critical manner why have so many assumed society to be passive when it comes to media? After all the arena’s of media and education are not discreet and our ritual space and approaches naturally intersect and overlap.