The majority of these lecture revolved around Rowan trying to ensure that we fully understood the terminology used in the course and the Miller and Rose reading.

Firstly we defined a few theories.

• Critical approach is the layering of theory upon theory. Critical approach describes behaviour without quantifying it and can often become quiet complex. This approach is hard to prove wrong, as its justification is much more in depth than empirical research methods and evidence. By using a critical approach, with the combination of theories, it is possible to reveal trends and constructive advancements, associated with social and cultural contexts and their related implications. As society wide issues are not able to be narrowed down into numbers, critical approach can be extremely useful and constructive.
  
• Empiricism was discussed next. When discussing Empirical data, one is chiefly concerned with results that are the direct by-product of quantifiable methodologies. That is to say, data that can be used to create statistics and other quantity based facts. Empirical research finds it advantages over other, say, more qualitative methodologies in that it can be used to test hypothesis and that empiricism produces solid facts and figures as opposed to more in depth results.
• Post structuralism – Structuralism is an approach that sees any field as a complex system of interrelated parts which only have any meaning through a system of signs. These signs are seen as the be all and end all of the meaning they produce. Post-structualism is developed in response to this. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of truth being an infinite concept and suggests that everything is interpreted differently by each person. Post-structuralist critics see meaning making (or truth) as a mediated process, with our socio-cultural background, past experience and beliefs playing a role in our interpretation of things. These meanings we create are an example of a sort of social kind of power.

In the last part of the lecture we went over the Miller and Rose reading to ensure we fully grasped what they were talking about. Here’s a few we jotted down.

•    Paragraph 1: power is undergoing complex changes in regards to relationships and how it operates by way of restrictions
•    Paragraph 2: shift from restriction to enabling
•    Paragraph 3: Arguing for the shift from the coherent entity to the inclusive notion of Governmentality
•    Paragraph 4: this paper will explore power and the networks of Governmentality
•    Paragraph 5: Government as a form of influence, by way of expertise
•    Paragraph 6: problems of Government are often analysed by way of rationalities. The technologies of power. (technologies and techniques of power. Terms are used interchangeably). We should be focusing on the how rather than the why
•     Paragraph 7: micro processes work in parallel. Think of it as bottom up work.

Next week we’ll be working from technologies of government to welfare and governmentalization of the state.

Macken-Horarick, M. “The children overboard affair” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26.2 (2003) 1-16.

Firstly, Schirato and Yell cite the fundamental principles of Saussure’s theory of semiology; meaning is relational and we only grasp the meaning of something in relation to something else. Hot is hot because it is not cold, and vice versa. These linguistic signs are made up of three key aspects in order to form meaning: Signifier (the physical manifestation or form; so in terms of hot an image of a steaming cup of coffee), the signified (the idea that is forged; this coffee is hot), and the sign, which is a mixture of both (this coffee is hot because it has steam coming from it).

However, the main flaw in Saussure’s work is his failure to recognise that not all meaning is intentional, and his assertion that semiotic systems are impenetratable. The Hindu’s certainly did not mean for Hitler to appropriate their sacred symbol into what became the Nazi Swastika – a sign of racial hatred. Whilst Saussure’s work dictates that an arbitrary connection has been formed between the sign and meaning evoked, his theories can be easily turned upside down to support counterarguments against it. Whilst Saussure emphasised the role of the sender and that meaning had to be “put together and by someone”, we can fully appreciate the theories of American linguist C.S Pierce who overcomes this notion of explicit intentionality when he states a sign is ‘something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity’. Additionally, if we consider Russian linguist Volisnov’s insight that the semiotic system is constantly changing and the production of meaning is “in no way pre-ordained”, we can understand how Hitler was able to appropriate the ancient symbol of the Swastika to form a whole new meaning and serve a different ideology.

Let me further this example. UNSW’s magazine Tharunka featured the history of the word c*nt in it’s most recent issue. Noting that whilst it is simply another word for vagina, it carries with it negative connotations. Sean Lawson and Su-Min Lim note that “meaning is cultural and changeable”. If we think about it, what does the word c*nt even mean? Lawson and Lim assert that the offensiveness of the word is in fact not the mere formation of the sounds which form the word, but our negative “attitude towards women and their nether regions”, and thus conclude their article by asking that this socially misconstrued word be reclaimed. This is a 21st century example of the way in which “words are always filled with content and meaning drawn from behaviour and ideology” (Volisnov, 1986:70), and a prime reflection of the world created by ideologies and the signs that spring from them.

Schirato & Yell, Communication and Cultural Literacy. Allen and Unwin, 2001, 18-33.

“Practicing the terrorist drill at school was really normal,” Sharla tells me from her living room, decorated with wooden giraffes and tribal paintings. “I remember the teacher would put her desk up to the door and we’d climb under ours. As a kid you just don’t know.  I don’t remember being afraid as a kid. But as I got older, I became more afraid because I understood it.”

At first a little reserved to talk about her experiences, including witnessing a brutal stabbing when out grocery shopping with her grandparents, Sharla admits to feeling a little uneasy about the recent presidential election of Jacob Zuma.

“I’m not really sure if putting someone with the famous slogan ‘bring me my machine gun’ as head of the country is a step forward. Obviously South Africa’s not in a crisis anymore, but I guess people can make of that what they will.”

Sharla’s family moved to South Africa in 1985 due to her father’s work with the church. Being the daughter of a minister was tough due to the constant shifting, and despite sometimes questioning her father’s choices, Sharla says she understands his commitment despite some niggling reservations.

“He had to go where his work with the church led him, but I still don’t think it’s a good place to bring up children. Everyone in South Africa has had bad experiences. If we were in South Africa right now talking like this 20 years-ago, anyone could break out fighting around us.”

Blaming the constant paranoia she lived in back in South Africa for her current anxiety issues, Sharla admits to going to the same lengths she did over 15 years ago to ensure her safety.

“You know where you’ll hide.  I still do it over here – plan where I’ll go and what I’ll do if someone breaks in and tries to rape me.”

Regardless of the rising crime rate and her increasing awareness of the racial tension around her as she matured, Sharla says these were not the reasons her family moved to Sydney in 1993. However, she says her family didn’t mind a pay cut in exchange for quality of life.

 “When we moved we had one plate!” Sharla laughs. “We had to share. Only really rich South Africans moved abroad, but my Dad didn’t mind being worse off financially.”

Although she admits to seeking psychological help last year for her reoccurring anxiety problems, Sharla believes growing up in that politically unstable time has helped shape her into the woman she is today.

“My childhood defines who I am, and even though I’m still scared of the dark, I wouldn’t change a thing.”

Firstly, Castells asks that we disregard the notion that we are now in an “informational age”. We have always had knowledge and information. Society is not defined by the age that we’re in. I am not defined by the fact that I own a computer, or an iPhone. Rather, it is the way in which we are sharing this information and the value of this process that is defining the current era. It is the “power embedded” in these information technologies that is defining society and the time you are living in right now. That is, the power to build networks and use this communicated information for a purpose, and more specifically, an  ”electronic communication technologies-powered social network”. But yet, as Castell says “the availability of proper technology is necessary, but not a  sufficient condition for the transformation of social structure.” What he’s trying to say here is, we obviously need electronic equipment to create these networks. The convergence of technologies which are “increasingly diffused” throughout society has aided with this. Is there anything the iPhone and it’s mulitiple clones CAN’T do? It seems like everyone has one. But in order for these networks to alter the way society operates, there needs to a value placed on them. The higher the value, the higher the power. For example, we all value our Facebook accounts. I know I do. I have the Facebook application on my iPhone. I check it constantly. I placed a high value on it and that’s where its power lies. Before that I used Myspace. But Facebook has, as Teresa Rizzo states in the second reading for this week, a series of “constant interruptions”, that is, interactive links that you click on and take you someplace else in the network. I think these are far more interactive than Myspace’s features and that’s what’s responsible for Myspace’s increasing unpopularity. Facebook has what Castells calls the “three major features of networks that benefited from the new technological environment: flexibility, scalability, and survivability.” Facebook, and social networking in general, is linked to the “redifinition of the material foundations” of space and time. In both readings these are referred to as “the space of flows” and non-linear time. Tom Bracken describes the space of flows in a far better words than Castells: “The space of flows refers to the technological possibility of practising simultaneity without contiguity; basically interacting instantly and beyond physical confines. This is vital to not only the efficiency of dominant networks within society but also the achievement of globalisation and the connecting of the world.” Remember, space does not need to be defined as purely physical.  And with the notion of linear-time being eradicated by networks and technological advancements, it’s possible to liken a network to that of the Foxtel iQ analogy described in the second reading for this week. Teresa Rizzo, in ‘Programming Your Own Channel: An Archaeology of the Playlist“, described the Foxtel iQ personal digital recorder as a “DIY TV channel”. The Foxtel iQ, like any social network (which is like a DIY community in a way), enables the user to tap into whatever they want, whenever they want. There’s no restrictions regarding time of day or the length of use as we can rewind, fast forward and pause as much as we please.

But of course, in order for these networks to be productive and not just an abstract concept existing in the virtual world, we need to understand that these networks must contribute to and be part and parcel of “the real world”. Castells mentions the dot-com bust, where everyone forgot “that the key role of the Internet is to power the real economy, rather than to escape into the domain of a new, virtual economy.” The capacity for networks to function and serve a purpose exists in the “redefinition of citizen participation and political participation” and in “organziational restructuring”. There is room to co-exist and compliment each other for the technological networks and the rest of society in the physical world. But how do we do this? As Castells says, we value sharing and the diverse content of what we are sharing, and that is where the power lies. We need to recognise “the power of networking and of the synergy obtained by giving to others and receiving from others” and discard our Habermasian-Beckian membership exclusivity. It is then, that we  truly appreciate that little message that greeted us on everyone’s Myspace profiles – “So-and-so is in your extended network”. 

Castells, M. Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint” From The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, pgs. 3-7 & 36-45.

Rizzo, Teresa. “Programming Your Own Channel: An Archaeology of the Playlist”. In Kenyon, Andrew, Ed. TV Futures: Digital Television Policy in Australia. Carlton, VIC: Melbourne University Press, 2007, 108-134.

How did you last buy some new music? Did you actually even purchase it? I won’t tell if you’re a Bit Torrent junkie and consider yourself chief of all music piracy operations. Let me tell you how I last bought an album: I was brushing my teeth in a hostel in Melbourne. I whipped out my iPhone and logged into iTunes and purchased Lykke Li’s debut album in a total of two minutes. This is an example of the 21^st century challenges for traditional media and new media that Virginia Nightingale raises in her text New Media Worlds. She attributes these revenue generating and audience share related problems to the issue of convergence. Convergence is increasingly becoming an issue with the advancement of digitisation and also has a profound effect on quality of content. This process of digitisation can be examined when we look at the way in which newspapers have now emerged online, a process called internetisation (Fortunati, 2005). These net-based newspapers are needed in order to accommodate to the lazy and distinctively Generation Y consumer, such as myself. User-generated content such as blogs are also becoming a prominent source for the media consumer (I myself, am a huge reader of blogs). One magazine that has acutely identified this trend in online consumption is NYLON Magazine, which recently went digital and now delivers issues to subscriber’s inboxes, rather than their letterboxes. By eliminating their printing costs, they’ve bridged the gap between richness and reach and sought the best of both worlds. They can still generate advertising revenue, have increased their bandwidth, and they haven’t reduced reader interactivity because they also have a website and blog which enhances their brand. However, you can make a special request to receive a physical copy if you value “the economy of things”. This example, in my opinion, discredits Nightingale’s argument that online emergence is a “doomed attempt to hold onto fickle youth audiences” (p25). NYLON magazine is now bigger and better than ever and is constantly expanding its readerships and circulation into overseas markets. This example also answers the main question the reading asks, regarding who is winning the tug of war between mediatisation and internetisation and why. This blogger also identified the same trend in relation to the increasing popularity of e-journals, which caused me to consider other online-based resources. Nightingale identifies the possibility of the causal relationship between a decrease in quality of content and an increase in user-generated content. Whilst it’s largely un-thought of these days for a student to choose the library’s encyclopaedia over Wikipedia, and although this can have a detrimental result in terms of reliability, I believe that media convergence is a force for good and a step forward. User generated content upholds the right to free speech and freedom to express thought. Getup.org.au is a manifestation of this. Privately owned platforms can limit access to public space and the right to express our ideas freely. Nightingale illustrates this with the example of Microsoft Vista’s exclusive membership and impractical terms of use in regards to file sharing (p33). This is why I believe “transmedia storytelling” (Jenkins, 2006) is catapulting the transformation of information into a day and age where the gap between richness and reach can be overcome. I believe, and as Nightingale has illustrated in her text, that companies now need to be an amalgamation of use-generated content and traditional media in order to survive in this techno-centric age.

Nightingale, Virginia. “New Media Worlds? Challenges for Convergence.” In Nightgale, Virginia and Tim Dwyer, Eds. New Media Worlds: Challenges for Convergence. South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press, 2007, 19-36.

19^th November 1863

For Immediate Release

MEDIA RELEASE

LINCOLN CONTINUES FIGHT TO END TO SLAVERY

President Abraham Lincoln has sworn to continue the battle to end slavery against the Southern American states at the opening of the Soldier’s National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, earlier this afternoon.

After a two-hour ceremony consecrating the Gettysburg battlegrounds for the site of the cemetery, President Lincoln announced his intentions in an emotional speech to devote his government to the “unfinished work” of the deceased soldiers of the Civil War.

“We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.”

President Lincoln vowed in his emotional address to honour the men who died by upholding the Founding Father’s principle of equality for all.

“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” he said, before resolving that the brave men should not die for a lost cause.

“It is for us the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they fought here have thus far so nobly advanced…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

President Lincoln described the war as a test of endurance for the American people and encouraged listeners at his address to honour the men who died by advancing the devotion of their fellow countrymen.

“…we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”

President Lincoln reminded listeners that government belonged to and was created by the public, and envisioned a “new birth of freedom – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Media contact:

The Media Relations Department

Director of Media and Communications – Camilla Peffer (02) 555-5555

Mobile Phones, Japanese Youth, and the Re-placement of Social Contact – Mizuko Ito

I found this week’s reading by Mizuko Ito throroughly enjoyable and and relatable . With its lack of Habermassian language (which is so prevelant in all the other readings) and examples which I find applied to my life once upon a time, I found it a far easier read and presented far more logical arguments.

We all remember our first mobile phone, right? I remember when I first got mine: I was 14 and was looking forward to not having to go through any “gate keepers” (parents) to get to my friends. And imagine no longer having to be embarrassed when calling a member of the opposite sex! Mobiles were giving youth a chance to “push back at their own disenfranchised position within adult-controlled institutions and spaces of activity.” I could finally reach my friends at their homes without adult intervention when it came to being too late to talk on the phone (let alone ring a land line and wake everyone up). These “heirarchial relations” (rules created by parents) which were “key components of place making” were pretty much rendered null come the arrival of the Nokia 3310 into my eager little palms. Apparently Australian teenagers were not alone. In fact, these examples seemed to be relevant in Japanese society, and to an even greater extent. Ito makes the point that with Japanese homes being small in comparison to Western families’ homes, Japanese youth usually have to meet outside their homes to socialise. The mobile phone lets them overcome these spatial boundaries and extend their relationships (make them “mobile”), as they can constantly text each other.  Parents might think it’s unacceptable for their children to be pursuing romantic relationships, and although they can “extend the parametres of their surveillance” by constantly calling their child, the mobile phone changes this status of the child. It allows the user more freedom and enables them to create private spaces for them and their friends.  It mobilises their freedom. It sets their independence in motion.

 Mobile phones also let you be more selective with your relationships and you can “virtually lock the door” on someone you don’t want to talk to. Don’t want to speak to them? Call bar! Don’t reply to that text message.

I think the main question that Ito is asking us here is whether the mobile phone is a tool for rebelling against the “place-based logics” of the public sphere (whether it be the classroom, the train or the home), or whether it can be accommodated to them and thus not break down these social constructs of place. I say we can accommodate the mobile to rebel against these institutions.  I hardly ever call my friends. I don’t feel that a phone call creates the same “technosocial” private space that SMSing allows. I feel like I can have more private “contact” when I text as there’s no one to listen in (I do still live with my parents) and intrude on “my private space” (think back to the example of the woman on the train in last week’s reading on space). Whoever invented texting is a hero to all teenagers for enabling them to create their own private spaces. By adhering to the social etiquettes of the place we are in at the time (like the classroom), we can use the mobile as a tool to rebel against these controlled spaces. We can take our relationships from “outside” to the “inside” (ie: mobilise them) in a very discreet and sneaky way as the mobile phone acts as a mediator between us and the person we wish to have private space with.

We all know we can’t physically be in two places once. Some time-deprived people (such as myself) consider it the bane of our existence not being able to multiply ourselves and experience both places at simultaneously. But think about the following: have you ever created a separate identity for yourself online? Have you ever made yourself sound much more sophisticated or smart, or even tricked someone into believing that you’re someone else? You’re physically sitting at the computer, but mentally you’re occupying another place (or maybe even both as you interact with your physical surroundings). You’re engaging with other people even though you’re not face-to-face. You’ve in fact, doubled yourself to experience two places at once. You could be eating dinner at your computer whilst using Facebook chat.  In this week’s reading, Shaun Moores (2004) argues that this example of “multi user domains” (Kendall, 2007), proves that through modern technological advances, our sense of place in time can be multiplied. This is the ‘magic’ (Scannell, 1996) of technology. We can hold videoconferences and attend meetings from the other side of the world, or check in back home via webcam whilst we’re backpacking in Europe. And through new phenomenoms like Second Life, we can extend ourselves, our multiple selves, or even re-create ourselves to serve another purpose.

No longer do we have to be content with physical situations and actually using our legs to get us to tangible public spaces. Modern technologies like the Internet and the mobile phone have made it possible to interact with friends, family and even strangers in a completely different sphere. It’s not even a physical setting. It’s just ‘there’, and also becomes someone’s ‘their place’.  But first, let’s have a look at an older technology, that of broadcast.

Broadcast and new media (mobile phones and the internet) both have the capacity to alter our sense of place in time. As Couldry says: “Why not argue that media coverage massively multiplies the interconnections between places…?” (2000). Broadcast can double our sense of place through the way in which they present events.  Take into account the example of Princess Diana’s funeral on page 105 of the reader. By the televisions station’s use of dailiness, they were able to disrupt the care structures of one particular couple to the point where they didn’t even leave the house the day of the funeral. They were sitting at home watching the TV, but emotionally felt as though they were right there next to her sons grieving along with them.  I had a similar experience today. Longing to be in Melbourne for the International Comedy festival, I learn from Triple J that they’re going to be broadcasting live the event. I probably should be attacking my never-ending sea of assignments and putting uni work as my first priority (or care), but by using dailiness, broadcast has altered my care structures and helped to bridge the farness between myself in Sydney and Melbourne.

The internet and its many “multi use domains” (Kendall, 2002), can also achieve a plurality of space but in a different way to broadcast. But the two can be grouped together if we remember the arguments of audience-participation raised in an earlier reading (Media Studies 2.0). We can establish a variety of different identities online and engage in virtual role-playing. Television can transport us mentally to a different physical setting, but when we use these “multi user domains” of the world wide web, we’re transporting ourselves there. But, as Daniel Miller and Don Slater argue (2000), are these activities part of everyday life and do they add to our many social places? Or are they separate because these re-presentations of ourselves are not really the real us? Are these “places apart from the rest of social life?” Like Sherry Turkle’s work affirms (p107 of the reader), I consider our ‘internet selves’ to be an extension of our ‘real-life selves’, thus they form part of our social lives and therefore, another one of our social places (or publics). This is because who we are in the physical world can determine who we are online, whether we’re enhancing our personalities, overcoming our shyness and letting the real us shine through, or using the internet as a portal to act out our insecurities (see postsecret.blogspot.com), “our social interactions online remain grounded in understandings and contexts that intersect with offline realities” (Kendall, 2002).

By referring to the outcomes of Turkle’s work and her analysis, this text seemed to be asking me if this “doubling of space” through virtual interactions is a bad progression? Wouldn’t we benefit from physical social interactions rather from meeting over the net? As a time deprived student (or maybe it’s just the lazy Gen Y in me speaking), I think that this doubling of place can double our time, and with cloning of humans impossible, I’m quite happy with the plurality of both these concepts.

Bibliography : Couldry. N. and mThe Doubling of Place – Electronic media, time-space arrangements and social relationships