Updated Infographic: Fandom and Mental Health

rhdates

Timetable for completing your first research hypertext:

3.17 Revised landing page, research question, data collection proposal, infographic should be complete by this date or earlier.

3.19 Production day: No reading assigned. Day reserved for in depth literature review and site composing.

3.24 Landing page, 3-5 additional pages, lit review page due.

3.26 Data collection and presentation due.

3.31 Full site due, except for animated video

When your site is complete, and you are reasonably caught up with your other assignments, please schedule a conference with me to discuss your ambitions for a final grade. I will describe how to get that grade and provide feedback on your work.

Timetables for reading to be discussed either in class or online are on the syllabus. Timetables for earlier assignments are tabbed on this blog. Timetables for the final project will be posted soon.

Fuchs ch.8

Fuchs spends a lot of time in chapter 8 downplaying the importance of social media in the Arab Spring. While I agree for the most part with him, I have one major reservation, namely the governments in each country's perceived notion of how powerful social media is. In many of the countries that had protests and revolutions during the Arab Spring, such as Egypt and Syria, the governments went to extreme lengths of censorship. They initially blocked social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and when that was not enough, they shut down the entire country's internet. The governments in this country were so scared of the power of these sites that they went to these extreme lengths, so is Fuchs underestimating their power?

The blocking of the internet also forced people to leave their houses and congregate in order to find out what was happening, so in a way this may have made the face-to-face interactions that Fuchs thinks so highly of seem more important that it would have been if the internet was still active in these countries. The shutdown of the internet may have actually been the impetus for more gatherings that led to major protests and revolutions, instead of being a minor part as Fuchs states.

3/17 Wark's Ch. 1-8 Discussion - Emma Reigel

Wark's reading was very hard to grasp solid facts from. However, I did enjoy her analysis of modern day issues and tracing of history. I found Chapter 2, The Critique of Everyday Life to be very interesting. Situationists and their movement described as being against "this obscure conspiracy of limitless demands," (Wark, 13) seem to be a valuable part of the society, even if they can't change anything. They allow society to at least have an awareness and to see OR disagree with their idea of limitless demands harming society. Though they don't get much credit or try to really "rub in" their facts and opinions, the fact that they try to make people aware of the potential problem of over-consuming is helpful in and of itself.  I found it interesting that they're movement was during many of the civil rights movements in the 60's and 70's. Even earlier in the late 50's I thought it was unique that many of the Situationists were artists and used their art to display their emotions and opinions of political society. Post-Situationist literature also seems to be very important. The most famous, Debord, discussed Situationist ideals in regards to revolution and the intellectual division of labor, critiquing the every day life as a totality, and worked upon an alternative plan to this over-consuming, political inequality (Wark, 14). Debord is for the hippies, for the liberals, not for the conservative section of society that are so set in their ways, and enjoy the inequality of politics, economics, and society. Though the Situationist International Movement failed in the late 60's in France and Italy, it showed that there were people who were not pleased with the way things were working (Wark, 15).

The idea that a revolution cannot take place in the 20th/21st century is interesting, and I tend to agree with this. Though there is civil unrest, and small scale revolutions (as scene in Ferguson, Missouri), ultimately, I think the revolution start would quickly be ended and would fail. I believe that the government has infiltrated every aspect of society and also would not allow for a revolution to even fully begin. The power of the government has become hugely greater than it was when movements were allowed and able to change. Also, the people seem to have become indifferent about the current situation, not feeling their necessary need to get into any argument or cause. This could be related back to the idea of revolution and revolt through the web. Many people may click the "like" button or read articles passively, as PCH discussed, but do not chose to actively do anything about it in their reality. This is a downfall of how the internet has changed society. Less personal interaction with other like-minded people, seems to have maybe caused a bit of the lesser-passionate causes and activists.

"To be at war with the whole world lightheartedly," (Wark, 15) really helped me understand the Situationists ideas. Also, the fact that the word lightheartedly shows their lack of severe effort. Another quote from the book that made me realize that the Situationists, though the movement was very much real, did not actively stand against and rebuke the things they hated most, politics. Daniel Cohn-Bendit said "It is beautiful to contribute to the ruination of this world. What other success did we have?" (Wark, 15). This was stated about being in the European Parliament. I find it interesting that people can hate something, yet purposely and dutifully contribute to the ruin.  How does this help, and why would they even bother to assert they were against it if they are willing to contribute TOWARDS the problem??

Culture defined by the Situationists is plagiarizing, seducing, and detouring of past texts, images, ideals, practices, etc. (Wark, 16). The idea that everything is rather remixed than created goes along with the topic of remixing we have discussed in the class. And the overall agreement we had that most often things are, indeed, remixed rather than organic. This, as Wark points out, can be negative in many ways, especially in the Situationist texts. The idea that Situationists is an "offspring" of Marxism is interesting and I tend to agree with the idea. The comparison to punk rebellion and arachist dumpster-diving is also easily seen, but I tend to agree less with the punk rebellion, as they are a little more "in your face," than Situationists (Wark, 16). The idea of the Situationists seeing the world as a game and they are playing in it is interesting and shows how they viewed their cause. The actions of the self in every day life can be small changes that would ultimately change every day life, if enough people consciously acted throughout the day, and chose to lessen their reliance on the power of the economy, distributors, and political departments. Acting from behind the scenes could be a positive to this movement, however it makes it seem like the change would take MUCH longer (Wark, 17). If one becomes disinterested in the world and its games and consumption, one could live a much lighter life and not be a contributor to what they hate - the power of the establishment. Their idea to not take the world seriously helps one go throughout life worrying less, but we should (i think) take it seriously, because it is our reality and we do have to live within society, unless you want to go run off into the rainforest (Wark 18). However, Dubord commented on even in the bad days he did not leave the city, which shows that they people of the movement took the world's issues lightheartedly, which is a good thing to do when it is an issue that you, yourself, cannot change (Wark 18).  To me, their "Live without dead time," mantra means that you should actively live and live your life the way you want the world to be - or as much as you can within societies confinements (Wark, 19).

I found the content of chapter 28 in “The Participatory Cultures Handbook” very interesting. This chapter discusses five fundamental areas of ethical concern within participatory cultures and these five areas are access, rulemaking, connectedness, contribution, and freedom.

If participatory cultures are to reach their full potential then we must first become aware of the differences in access. There must be universal and meaningful access for all human if the participatory cultures are to progress as a whole. The disparity in access is only the first step. People with access become members of certain participatory cultures and once members, it is their duty to develop and enforce new rules while also making sure that new members understand them. It is through this rulemaking, that one member decides whether or not to choose to display hospitality towards another member. Hospitality is a “positive inclusivity which seeks out different viewpoints and unheard voices (Ward and Wasserman, p. 288) and it is this form of connectedness that allows growth. Members of a participatory culture do not have to contribute, however all members must feel as if they are free to contribute when they are ready. It is the hospitality and connectedness (or lack thereof) that pushes members into a certain rule-abiding direction of contribution. The final fundamental area of ethics is freedom of expression.

The most interesting area of ethics pertaining to participatory cultures to me was the section on contribution. I found the difference between respect and knowability within participatory cultures intriguing. Henderson states, “Respect must be at the core of valued participation” (277). Respect arises through interaction so when a member “constructively contributes to a participatory culture then he or she gains respect” (277).. Some member’s real-world fame and credibility bring them ‘instant knowability’ which is different from instant respect. Knowability has no implication of respect for or from any participatory culture. The interesting part to me is that one can be unknown yet respected or known in the real world but not respected. This concept directs the focus onto the contributions to a participatory culture and not the identity of an individual.

Under this concept, the real world identity of an individual seems to not not matter as long as the individual makes constructive contributions to a participatory culture. Does anyone think otherwise? Can the real world knowability of a person affect their respect within online participatory cultures?

Wark reading

I'm going to be honest--I found the Wark reading somewhat inaccessible. However, I tried my best to understand it, so bear with me.

I found the following quote interesting: "Even if a revolution could not take place in the late twentieth century, in the early twenty-first century it seems simply unimaginable. It is hard not to suspect that the over-developed world has simply become untenable, and yet it is incapable of proposing any alternative to itself but more of the same" (Wark, 15).

What I gather from this is that our infrastructure in the Western world is so based in capitalism that we would not have the chance to change it even if we wanted to. In relation to the Internet, so much of what we do online involves some sort of advertisement or monetizing effort. We are inundated with ads tailored specifically to us based on our Google searches and Facebook likes. Most websites we use have some form of making money, and it is usually off  of the user. Sure, we may not pay for most of the sites that we use, but the websites get their money from us somehow. This cyber-infrastructure is so dependent on capitalist means that to try and revolutionize the system now would be to change everything we know in the digital world.

PCH 17 and Fuchs 4 discussion

When I began reading Ch. 17 in the Participatory Cultures handbook, I decided to pay close attention to whether or not Fuchs achieved his goal of providing a narrow definition of participatory democracy. This term has been used quite a bit in our readings, but since I have many conflicting ideas of what democracy really is, its been difficult to pinpoint exactly what each author has meant. This chapter gave a somewhat clear idea of what the terms refers to in this context, but it was hardly concise. Fuchs notes that there is an endless dispute over the meaning of democracy, and practically every definition he provides branches off into many other subcategories. You’d think we’d be safe with the etymological definition— rule or power of the people— but that could mean government by the people, rule by the people, self government, or collective self rule. 

Well, in this chapter we are sticking to government by the people. Government here is composed of common affairs and the decisions that regulate them for all people. However, the meaning of “people” and the way these decisions are reached varies dramatically depending on the governments guidelines and methods for participation. The two subtypes of democracy are on opposite ends of the participation scale. Its basically direct vs. indirect democracy— participatory democracy involves active engagement of citizens in decision making, while representative democracy involves delegating the decision making to representatives. The three subtypes of participatory democracy demonstrate varying ratios of participatory to representative democracy, but I found his descriptions of these vague and far away. He touches on ideas of deliberation, but ultimately, I think the next chapter gives a better idea of participatory democracy, how it already exists, and ways in which people are moving towards a more collective decision making process. 

The authors of Ch. 18 gives a distinct sense of the ideas behind modern participatory democracy, and they provide ideological ideas that separate representative and participatory democracy. I was nodding my head in agreement when they said the historical evolution of democracy has privileged certain values over others— efficiency, delegation, vote, procedures, singular, professionalism, etc. The participatory “counter-democracy” is aiming to praise concepts like inclusion, process, plurality, and mutual understanding. Its appropriate this kind of movement occurs in in small scale, grassroots settings, as it corresponds with an antiauthoritarian mindset. In my opinion, the element of effective communication is what is missing from a representative democracy and one of the main reasons I distrust our form of government. Our current representative democracy is all about triumphing over others, while the the participatory counter-democracy discussed in this chapter is about reaching a consensus and transforming preferences through an open dialogue. 

      Fuchs really laid down the criticism in Chapter 4. He says that Castells lacks grounding in social theory, so he is unable to justify why he uses concepts in certain ways, and he fails to engage the history of the concepts. Chapter 17 of the PC handbook gave a clear sense of how one word (like democracy) can have a million different meanings, so its important to direct readers to the exact contextual address of the intended concept. I agree with Fuchs' criticism here, but at the same time, I don’t think people are somehow less entitled to express their opinion if they’re not familiar with all 1,000,000 definitions of “autonomy” that Fuchs’ bombarded us with. Just because Castells did not follow the precise way that Fuchs thinks an argument should be constructed, are his claims invalid?

I did, however, completely agree with Fuchs’ when he shot down Castells’ claim that violent, dominative power is the most fundamental process in society. This is an argument I have with a friend of mine all the time. He thinks that war is an inevitable quality of humankind and that trying to achieve a world without it is a waste of time— that “peace is categorically impossible.” I totally disagree (or at least I really want to) and think that this kind of violence is a historical and not fundamental characteristic of society. So yes Fuchs, cooperative, not coercive, power is the way to go!

At the beginning of the autonomy subsection, Fuchs brings up a really awesome observation of Castells- that the contemporary internet is shaped by a conflict between businesses trying to commodify the internet and a creative audience trying to establish a degree of citizen control— but he completely diverts our attention to his complaints concerning the use of autonomy. 

Obviously there is an asymmetry between the power of the corporations and the counter power of the citizens. They have more money, ownership, attention, and decision making abilities, but there is still that potential for the counter power to make a difference. Fuchs could have benefitted from discussing ways to maximize that potential instead of just dismissing it as an unlikely possibility. How can we overcome the constrains of this stratified online attention economy! 

One last thing— maybe Castells’ exaggerates the role of social media in recent protests, but I think Fuchs plays it down. What does everyone else think? I heard about all of these things through social media— especially the Occupy movement, and it definitely helped raise awareness and bring attention to the cause. 

Ch. 25 (discussion post for 3/3)

I found Ch. 25 to be interesting and informative. The difference between interactivity and interpassivity was a lot different than what I originally thought. The quality of interactivity is interesting to me. Depending on how much the user or consumer puts in, is how much they get out of the mass media/ social media. One can uncritically and passively read the same articles and social media posts as someone who is reading them critically and actively, allowing the information to raise questions and bring out a specific opinion, which they will later add to the argument. This is when social media and mass media is most helpful. Interpassivity seems like mindlessness to me. The loss of autonomy in interpassivity also sparked interest within me. I find it interesting, and true that as one reads passively, and does not make their own opinions, they get shuffled along with a mass group of people and is passively known to accept whatever they are passive about, until stated otherwise. Its pretty much shallow use of the tools the media gives you. This especially can be seen in political issues, where there are many ways one can assert their opinions and find out information, but many do not do this simply due to lack of interest, or simple laziness. I find Hactivists and Hackers to be some of the most active, critical users of media. Though they give power to capitalism, and "the establishment," the actively rebel against it using multiple mediums and purposely do things within the internet. It gives empowerment to the people. Though people may not be inter-passive within the media, does not mean they are active within the actual societal structures they are being active within on the web. Meaning, they may show great support and contribute to arguments and information online, but do nothing outside of this in reality. This can be a problem in the future if people stop acting out and just use social media to fight against or fight for causes.

I would like to discuss Chapter 1 from Wark. She describes how society contains a set of images that are created by the media and retail companies that eventually become necessities. These items are usually goods that are not necessary for survival, such as a designer handbag, or celebrity images, which cause us to think that we should look like these celebrities. When images of designer handbags are shoved in our faces, we begin to think it is necessary to obtain one ourselves. The issue I have with this is that Wark assumes we are all passive. To respond to that issue, do you agree that most consumers are passive? Do we really let these images control our lives?

PCH Chapter 23

I found the subject matter of PCH chapter 23 particularly interesting because I feel like incarcerated people, especially youth, are often overlooked. I thought the idea of allowing these youth, who have few advocates, the opportunity to express themselves and understand the developments of the digital age to better acclimate them to life outside prison was a very noble undertaking. The researchers encountered countless stumbling blocks, especially regarding privacy, that I believe raise important questions relevant to society as a whole.

One of the main issues the researchers encountered was about the level of anonymity they should have their participants establish in their online work. Despite the fact that many of the youth wanted to share their feelings about their experiences behind bars and reasons they were incarcerated in the first place, they were not discouraged from doing so for privacy reasons. The researchers worried that they might inadvertently share information about their cases that could come back to hurt them in court. My immediate thought links back to the hypothetical situation from a previous reading about the college student anonymously posting libelous comments on a website popular on campus. Because the anonymous student was most likely an adult, any legal action compelling the website to reveal the commenter's identity would probably be justified.

We have recently been reminded of what can happen when something that should not be posted to the internet is, thanks to the brothers of SAE at University of Oklahoma. One of the families of the two expelled students is now in hiding. Other members of the chapter have been subjected to death threats and assaults – and this incident happened with legal adults.

But what happens if someone underage posts something that constitutes grounds for legal action? What is being done to educate the younger members of society – minors who have never known a world without Facebook, Twitter, and the like about the consequences of misbehavior in the digital age? How do we educate the web-literate population as a whole about matters of privacy on the internet? How do we reconcile privacy rights with measures taken in the interest of national security in an age when agents such as the NSA increasingly scrutinize online activity?

Hub site: http://mhelenaw.weebly.com
Project site: http://poorintheelite.weebly.com
infographic: https://magic.piktochart.com/output/4857467-helenas-infographic

My Hub Site

Hub Site

hirofumikusumoto.weebly.com

Project Site

Pending approval of modified research question. I will provide a link as soon as I can.

Hub Site: lena2015.weebly.com

Project Site: secondgenerationamericans.weebly.com

Hub site
www.jillianford.weebly.com
Project site
www.subvertingsuccess.weebly.com

Links to Websites

Hub Site

http://joshuambloom.weebly.com/

Project Site

http://privateuniversity.weebly.com/

Updated Infograph

https://magic.piktochart.com/output/4754851-anti-drilling-pro-ecosystem

Infographic

For my research topic I decided to investigate the effects of ObamaCare on neurosurgeons in particular.

http://oceanclarke.weebly.com

https://magic.piktochart.com/output/4796715-nasas-budget-infograph

Discussion on readings from last Thursday and today (3/3)

Thursday's discussion (focused on Ch.4 in Fuchs):

In Thursday's reading, I found Ch. 4 in Fuchs very interesting as it discusses 'Social Media and Communication Power.' This chapter heavily discusses Manuel Castells concept of communication power within the context of social media. He stresses the role of the internet and social media as a part of the 'network society.' He thinks social media and communication power is a part of mass self-communication. He thinks self-communication is based on Umberto's Eco semiotic model of communication as the emergence of "creative audiences" engage the interactive production of meaning on the internet, which further emerges the idea of sender/addresser. However, I agree with this, it is much less a sender-receiver Internet now a days. I still found this particularly interesting. It adds to what we have learned thus far, a more personal aspect. How we, as humans, socialize, internet included, to put ourselves out there, to be known for specific things, and to allow other people to see what one is doing. Within this social media, counter-power and communication power are used. The power used, is to analyze, in part, the society we live in, which further structures and creates hierarchy. Then, there is the hierarchy of power within the internet, large corporations vs. small, vs. social media corporations, vs. the individual consumer. The counter-power is in trying to be against the commodification of everything, which is becoming increasingly occurring. Castells says that the role of communication shouldn't be neglected in both the power of the internet, and the political counter-power that is trying to keep the internet free of large-scale commodification. Though Castells has many valid points, he lacks a social theory, and his approach isn't legitimately theoretically grounded, but rather seems a little random and not based on the system and facts. He forgets about the engagement with social theories in which "conceptualize power, autonomy, society, and capitalism." He feels that power of communication is coercive and a violent feature within all societies. This is naturalizing domination and overlooks possibilities of domination-less communication and societies. One can interact on many planes and mediums, without having someone or something controlling or creating a lack of individual freedom and power. Castells also compares humans to computing, their logic and description of society in a whole. This allows no room for the actual role of humans within society, as he compares them to parts of a machine and technology. Though technology has a set way of working, societies (though they have governments) do not have fully set ways of living, communicating, working, etc. In Castells thoughts and discussion on the Arab Spring occupy movement displays techno-euphoria and techno-determinism thinking like Shirky. He advances an asumption that contemporary social movements emerged from and are based on the Internet and are acted out on social media. This shows how much of an importance social media is in activism. Through the power of the Internet and social media hubs, groups and activists are able to spread their cause and increase awareness and also increase in numbers. Though Castells has several good points, a more sturdy and critical theory of social media/media is needed.

Tuesday (3/3) Discussion of reading Ch. 8 Fuchs focus:
I think we have all, at one point or another, had a twitter or read the many tweets, often celebrity fights, that occur on the medium of Twitter. I used to have one, and deleted it after I realized I didn't care, nor want anyone to know "what I was doing" all the time. Twitter is a perfect example of how people live within the internet, and want to allow others to follow their every move. Their internet life becomes intertwined with reality, as I often hear "I'm gonna tweet this," etc. Though it is interesting and amazing we have the power to communicate and self-express, it is also a huge step away from privacy and close relations, to where anyone, anywhere can know what you are doing, where you are, and it often forms a "persona" around you based on what your twitter feed says. You can make yourself look like whatever or who ever on Twitter. The public sphere of twitter is universal and so is many blogs and micro-blogs. I found this chapter particularly interesting due to it's explanation of social media and the public/communication aspects of it. Twitter is, as all other medias, a politically based media. The use of social media allows a larger revolution, as Ch. 4 touched on. Protests have found organizations and created sites, such as on Twitter, to spread their cause, which creates collective protest action and awareness, with influences of politics, mainstream media, alt. media, idealogical violence, etc. which then amplifies the protest which causes a revolution. The social media also shows the contradiction of society, by showing forms of domination that causes problems that are economic, political and cultural in nature. Thee problems can result in crisis's  Castells focus on emotions of outrage and hope can be seen here. This area of contradiction can be seen because our society, itself, is contradictory. Soial media in a contradictory society can end up doing the opposite of what the initial goal was. Public spheres due to being a space for political communication, and the ability to access resources that allow people to participate within the social realm. This helps anaylyze whether the societies live up to their own expectations. It also tests freedom of speech and public opinion as the distribution of their information becomes widespread. ALso, the use of educational material for resources are within the public sphere. With so much within the sphere, its no wonder, that there are so many activism sites or groups that often get forgotten or misread due to a contradictory web society. This book says Facebook, Twitter, etc. are not public spheres, but i disagree. Though they do not cause revolutions or protests, they are ohow they are often publisized and further expanded.

My websites

http://www.malikajanderson.weebly.com
http://www.religionandhumanlife.weebly.com

Research Question

Why do people work so intensely to lose themselves? Is it necessary to sacrifice individuality in the pursuit of acceptance?

My Hub Site: kmaragh.weebly.com
my project site: priceofmembership.weebly.com

Infographic:

Discussing readings

I found Fuchs' chapter 8 discussing Twitter and whether or not it is a public sphere very interesting. He argues that Twitter is not truly a pubic sphere because everyone is not included in it's user population and because he believes Twitter's users are exploited. He also argues that social media does not cause revolution or protests. As an avid Twitter user, I have to disagree with what Fuchs says. I believe that Twitter is a public sphere. Although everyone is not a Twitter user and the majority of Twitter users are from a specific demographic, Twitter is a space that is open to the public. Twitter may be used for entertainment purposes more than political, but that doesn't mean that the political use of Twitter isn't impactful. Currently, and especially a few months ago when the Black Lives Matter movement was at it's peak, Twitter--specifically "Black Twitter" was in an uproar and their were streams of tweets from thousands of people specifically discussing the movement, issues within and outside the Black community, what needs to be done to combat police brutality against colored people, reparations, etc. every day. I witness debates about this, as well as other movements and current events happening every day. There are people on Twitter who basically dedicate their entire account to social-political discussion and many of these people have thousands of followers which sparks debate amongst a large number of Twitter users.

Also, Twitter is a public sphere because the information shared can be used as an alternative news source. There have been times when I found out about events happening because it was on Twitter, but it was not mentioned on the news at all, or it is discussed on Twitter before any news platforms discuss it--for example, the shooting death of unarmed teen Antonio Martin. Although I agree with Fuchs that social media does not cause revolution or protest, I would argue that is can motivate people who are already in such a mind frame to organize. It can also be used to persuade more people to support a cause and join protests that are already going on. I've seen this happen.

So, basically I conclude that Twitter is a public sphere.

Proposed research question and infograph

What is the general impact of religion on people's well-being--health, happiness, livelihood, etc?

My Website, Project Idea, and Infographic

Here's a link to the home page of my website:

https://mitchlo.wordpress.com/

On my coursework page there is a link to my project page which I'll also put here for easy access:

https://infogr.am/biracial_identity

Infographic and Sites

Project Site: http://effectofmusicstreaming.weebly.com

Personal Site: http://jessicatandrews.weebly.com

Infographic: