Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Defining Participatory Culture by Henry Jenkins, Mizuko Ito, and danah boyd

Just wanted to write my thoughts on the opening chapter; many of these concepts are fairly new to me so I need to see what the "experts" in these fields are both saying and doing! Henry Jenkins creates an image of participatory culture that is easy to like, defining it as “one which embraces the value of diversity and democracy through every aspect of our interactions with each other” (2). A culture that expects and allows us to live, make decisions, and express individuality as well as camaraderie through a variety of forums. Jenkins seems to be a voice among voices, much like Howard Rheingold in this arena. We are guided by Henry through the dialogue he, Mimi Ito and danah boyd share, illuminating the diversity of their connections to participatory culture. The widely different perspectives, values, purposes, and emphases are discussed by these three to the point of argumentation, validating their individual investments.  
                         
Mimi claims her focus was initially on geeks whereas Henry admittedly focused on fans and "fandom." Mimi approached media through the learning sciences, where education is perceived “as an act of participation in communities” (5). She explains in this approach, the learning and participation emerge from the day-to-day experiences of living and sharing in communities instead of educational settings. danah’s early impressions of participatory culture were from Henry, as she was his grad school student. After moving to San Francisco in the early 2000’s, working on the early phases of Web 2.0, she began to see the things Henry described in action. The “ground floor” concepts had blossomed and, judging by the three different perceptions offered here, taken on many different faces and abilities, dependent on who is speaking.     
                                              
Henry’s samba school and its mode of engagement is a dynamic example. Different forms of learning can now be addressed and directed, as educational settings are expanded by media’s effective use. Participatory learning was a standard of previous generations. Desire to learn meant watching, listening, modeling, and then finding how to express one’s individuality through age-old forms using new materials and/ or approaches. The passing on of knowledge was a respected tradition to be upheld. Today’s society has its cultural practices, such as selfies, a form of self-expression which can reach a larger network. However, this type of involvement prompts both positive and negative effects.
            Participatory media platforms like Henry’s grandmothers quilting was a source of her society; the realities of her life I find easy to relate to. It is hard to compare that investment of self to our networked societies, but with the impersonality of many neighborhoods today, the reassurance of an online community can present a healthy, participatory media platform. Here one can share thoughts, ask for advice, and gain support with the click of a finger. Nobody needs to feel isolated.
            Participation and resistance are discussed from a perspective of danah’s early days in San Francisco when online communities challenged control of powerful institutions. Henry, at that time, sought to “describe relationship between fans and the culture around them” (14). He explains, “Fandom” comes from both fascination and frustration. But Henry cannot understand what resistance people are talking about. In response, danah elaborates, everyone is attracted to “communities that are resistant” (14). By this point in their dialogue, I am clearly with Henry. Alternatives and resistance seem to be interchangeable, and I am neither resistant nor seeking alternatives at this stage...

            The next movement is towards a more participatory culture; but is media an equal opportunity platform? I don’t imagine completely, but one can use this as a place, a platform, to establish status. Unfortunately, one needs a voice that people want to hear before they anyone will listen. Such a status must be owned before the online identity will be heard. What’s at stake? Our future selves, it seems, as the world becomes ever more dependent on the media which informs and governs our lives.

No comments:

Post a Comment