Socratic Dialogue

Fuchs and Jenkins are sitting in a library working on their computers.  Jenkins is busy on social media while Fuchs is busy critiquing Horkheimer and Adorno.  Fuchs looks over at Jenkins screen and decides to engage him in a debate.

Fuchs: What are you doing Jenkins?

Jenkins: I’m letting my voice be heard on social media.  It’s a vital part of participatory culture.  People have to voice their opinions so they can help bring about the change they want to see in the world.

Fuchs: Do you believe your voice really matters?

Jenkins: Of course!  Participation is an important aspect of any society.  It’s a way to have my opinions be heard and to help shape the culture around me.

Fuchs: While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I believe you’re leaving out an important piece of the puzzle, participatory democracy.  Participation isn’t just a cultural act; it’s a political and economic one as well.

Jenkins: I know, I just believe culture is a way to bring about the change people want to see in the political and economic spheres.  When culture changes, how people view their politics and their economics will change and people will be able to reform their society however they see fit.

Fuchs: That would work if everyone had an equal voice in all parts of the conversation, but not everyone does.  Not only does participatory democracy favor upper class white men, it also excludes poor minority groups who are unable to voice their opinions due to lack of resources.  In addition to that major dichotomy, corporations and the rich are able to manipulate the discussion to favor them.  Companies are able to give the people a false sense of participation by involving them in small tasks like their brand image while the truly important matters like wages, fair trade, and exploitation are left to the rich to decide.  In fact, companies are able to exploit the population through this technique as the people feel connection to the brand image they’ve created and so are able to ensure the continued buying of their product.  That’s the problem with participatory democracy; it just looks at the cultural aspects and completely ignores the economic aspects.

Jenkins:  I could say the same about your opinion.  It focuses on the economic aspects while practically ignoring the cultural aspects.  The problem with your example is that people choose to participate in the rebranding of companies images.  A company can try to get the public involved with their rebranding, but if no one is interested, no one will help out.  Additionally, there are plenty of examples of social media gone ‘wrong’ where the public has backlashed against certain companies after they tweet, post, or publish something offensive or stupid.  People are able to make their own decisions and while corporations are going to try and utilize and convince people to follow their brand, ultimately people have to make their own choices about who they follow, what brands they buy, and form their own perceptions of various companies and corporations.

Fuchs: The utilization is a major problem though.  When people help design the rebranding of a company’s brand, they are effectively doing work for the company, but they won’t receive a pay check or any sort of compensation for their time and efforts except a sense of belonging to a company which only furthers the companies own ends as the people will have a sense of dedication to the company and will feel the need to buy exclusively from them.  In address to people being able to make their own choices, I don’t agree with you.  Corporations are able to pay more than the average person can and so their appearance on websites, blogs, and other social media is more prevalent and pervasive than the voices of the individuals and anyone who would want to criticize them.

Jenkins:  While it’s true the corporations are on the top regarding aspects of money and pervasiveness online, I don’t see that as a necessarily bad thing.  First off, people are still able to find ‘subversive’ material if they want to although it may take a little more digging to find.  Secondly, it gets people involved with the companies, helping to guide them in the direction they want them to go.  For example, the video game series “The Elder Scrolls” has a very dedicated fan base who write extended amounts of fanfiction which is taken into consideration by the developers and a large portion of it is incorporated into the next video game they produce.  While corporations are able to manipulate the people, the people are able to manipulate the corporations right back.  It’s a two way street.  Ultimately people are able take their own opinions and influence the world around them.

Fuchs:  Which of course raises questions of how are people trying to influence the world around them.  There are groups that are not progressive and they must be considered a part of participatory democracy as well.  Racists, homophobes, sexists, and all types of people are advocating their non-progressive opinions online and that’s a scary thing.

Jenkins:  Of course it’s a scary thing, but it’s just as scary to think that certain individual upper class white men, the so called philosophers and theorists, the Frankfurt School, and the like, are able to control what is considered progressive.  That reeks of cultural exploitation instead of economic exploitation, and both have their pros and cons.  To take away the one area (social media) where people are able to collectively join together and feely discuss the different types of exploitation they experience is much more dangerous than having one type of exploitation control or curtail the other.

Fuchs: The difference is, I’m just trying to make the world a better place while corporations are trying to help themselves.

Jenkins: While that’s true enough, who’s to say what you think makes the world a better place is what’s best for the world?  There are more than seven billion people on the planet, and not all of them have the same view of the world you do.

*I tried to stay as close to possible to the opinions of Fuchs and Jenkins, however, in order to have a complete debate between the two I had to fill in some loose holes an opinions.  In addition I sometimes put my own voice in their opinions although I tried to stay as true to the individuals expressed opinions as I could.