I noticed many correlations to the readings we covered in
class this week while watching the short film Noah. Especially evident within the film was concepts found in Slack’s
“Beyond Transmission, Modes and Media”, Slack’s and Wise’s “Articulation and
Assemblage”, and Castells’ “Power in the Network Society”.
Interestingly, I believed that in the overall assemblage of the
computer, Noah appeared to hold significant power over the many different
articulations that he utilized. He was able to change his music, talk to his
girlfriend Amy on Skype, chat with his friend Kayne on Facebook messenger,
while simultaneously playing an online game. I believe that the many
articulations present and accessible to Noah on his desktop offered an element
of agency to choose which programs and apps he wanted to use at his
convenience. However, as we saw in the film, this agency to “make things happen”
was disrupted by the ever-changing articulations that he can not have full
control over. The initial problem arose when Amy’s skype call dropped and she
was “unable to go back online”. This is the first defining moment of when Noah
lost the element of agency and power that he may have held previously. This
moment also led to a list of other issues concerning power and agency as the
articulations around him changed and eventually disarticulate.
Furthermore, one of the first clues of a power struggle
between Noah and technology was evident when Noah attempted to search for
Youporn, and Youtube appeared as the first option. He then had to erase this
and retype his search to select the second option in Google’s search memory. I
connected this circumstance to the cyborg concept mentioned in the Slack
reading. However, I am not sure if this situation is supporting or contesting
Slack’s cyborg notion. For instance, the technology that Noah is using may
think as Noah does (by determining that Youtube is more frequently visited than
Youporn), though Youtube was not the website Noah was interested in visiting this
time. Therefore, is technology merely an extension of him, as McLuhan would
suggest, or has technology and man become one; inextricable, as Slack indicates in her
paper?
Moreover, after Noah obsesses over Amy’s Facebook profile
and stalking her friend Dylan who has commented on many of Amy’s photographs
online, while simultaneously chatting with his own friend named Kayne to find
out what is going on with Amy and Dylan, Noah decides the best course of action
is to hack Amy’s Facebook and “subtlety” changes her relationship status to
single. While we see that Noah has asserted some agency and power in his
decision to shut down his computer temporarily and not respond to his text
messages, evidently the “The value of being in the network increases exponentially
with the size of the network” (Castells, p. 43). However, as I can attest to,
the need and desire to get back online and feel included in the global network
is difficult to resist, especially in times of heartbreak when you want to feel
connected to others and find support anywhere in the world. After searching for
Amy on Facebook, Noah has determined that Amy has blocked him from Facebook. In
this instance, power, and the connection of technology and man becomes
increasingly evident. I mean that by blocking Noah from being able to search
for her profile, Amy has become this technology. Blocking Noah from Facebook is
essentially like blocking him from her life. Therefore, this technology is not
just an extension of her, but is her insofar that the standards or protocols of
communication may suggest. This action demonstrates a clear desire for Amy to
disarticulate herself from a specific node in the network, such as Noah. Did
anyone else see this in that way? I immediately thought of Slack’s cyborg concept while watching this part of the film. This specific instance in the film
also strengthened my own understanding to differentiate between Slack’s and McLuhan’s notions of
technology and man, which I first found difficult to separate while reading the article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a separate note, I have a question that correlates to the question that I brought up in class when discussing Linkedin. In the film, Noah meets a girl on ChatRoulette who he connects with and asks for her Facebook name, inevitably to search for her profile. The ChatRoulette girl states that she does not have a Facebook account because she believes the platform is creepy and makes people crazy. According to Castells, networking power refers to networks that have power over you, especially when you are not included in that network. This power "operates by exclusion/inclusion". In class, I was unconvinced that by not having a Linkedin account, one would not benefit from what the network has to offer, and therefore may be excluded from resources or information that others in the network would be afforded simply by being a node in the network. However, in the case of the film Noah, I believe that the ChatRoulette girl is able to avoid the negative and harmful aspects that the network may produce by choosing to exclude herself. Technically, even though she is not a node in the network, I would argue that is her power. She may be excluded from the rest of the network as seen in the short film but that is only because she chooses to not be part of that network. Does anyone else agree with this idea? I would love to continue the discussion we had in class using Facebook as the subject rather than Linkedin!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a separate note, I have a question that correlates to the question that I brought up in class when discussing Linkedin. In the film, Noah meets a girl on ChatRoulette who he connects with and asks for her Facebook name, inevitably to search for her profile. The ChatRoulette girl states that she does not have a Facebook account because she believes the platform is creepy and makes people crazy. According to Castells, networking power refers to networks that have power over you, especially when you are not included in that network. This power "operates by exclusion/inclusion". In class, I was unconvinced that by not having a Linkedin account, one would not benefit from what the network has to offer, and therefore may be excluded from resources or information that others in the network would be afforded simply by being a node in the network. However, in the case of the film Noah, I believe that the ChatRoulette girl is able to avoid the negative and harmful aspects that the network may produce by choosing to exclude herself. Technically, even though she is not a node in the network, I would argue that is her power. She may be excluded from the rest of the network as seen in the short film but that is only because she chooses to not be part of that network. Does anyone else agree with this idea? I would love to continue the discussion we had in class using Facebook as the subject rather than Linkedin!
Re. your comments about LinkedIn, the ChatRoulette girl is participating in a different form of network herself, avoiding the "evils" of Facebook but open to a different form of network. By not participating in LinkedIn or Facebook, you avoid all the downsides, but also miss the upsides. One of the upsides to LinkedIn is access to jobs that aren't advertised any where else. Also consider that employers might not look a candidates who aren't on LinkedIn - if you're not a node on the network, you probably will have to work harder to find a job. Maybe the same principle exists for Facebook. For my generation (GenX) there are still lots of people I know who aren't on FB and conduct their social lives "the old fashioned" way ... phone, text, e-mail, and (most importantly) in real life. I'm not sure about Millenials...
ReplyDeleteThanks for you feedback, Jo-Dee! Just as in class, however, I still don't buy this. I can appreciate that you miss the upsides and downsides of a given platform if you are not a node on that network. However, not in the way that Castells' networking power concept may suggest. I think that LinkedIn is not as powerful as some of my peers may suggest. I believe that you can find a job whether you are using LinkedIn (which may not show all jobs available), job banks, or the company website.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I would be interested in exploring the power that Facebook has over the nodes of its network. I think the ChatRoulette girl chose to avoid the downsides, without missing any benefits. Is there a benefit that cannot be found using another platform? I think our society puts this power into different technologies without thinking of the negatives or alternatives. Maybe "the old fashioned" way should not be forgotten.
I wanted to add... "should not be forgotten" by Millenials!
DeleteInteresting perspective Erika. I do see where you are coming from in suggesting that there is still power available if you opt out of the network. That being said, I would argue that Castells does not privilege networking power over other sorts of power, or argue that it is the only form of power. Castles states, "there is always the possibility of resistance that calls into question the power relationship." Thus, Castells acknowledges that one can resist and obtain power elsewhere. What Castells is attempting to argue in defining networking power is the notion that the power of a network is reserved for those within it, and cannot be accessed unless one joins the network. That is not to say that one cannot access alternative forms of "power" if they are not in the network, but they cannot access the specific power within that network. As Castells states on page 42, "this form of power operates by exclusion/inclusion."
ReplyDeleteI think an important concept to bring up in understanding networking power in relation to LinkedIn is Castells' idea of relational capacity. For Castells, "relational capacity means that power is not an attribute but a relationship." Thus, power is not inherent within a network, but rather is tied to the specific relationships within the network. So although you may be able to obtain a certain form of power by using alternative or "traditional" media for your job search, you do not have access to the power of relationships that are gained in a network like LinkedIn. The connections to other individuals in your field, potential employers, and recruiters that are constructed within the network are only available to those who access that network. Although you can make your own "offline" connections, or connections using an alternative platform, you do not have access to the power inscribed within the specific LinkedIn network.
An alternative means of looking at this concept that may be more convincing and less pessimistic in relation to the power of neoliberal capitalism is the idea of cooperatives. A cooperative could be conceptualized as a network by Castells' definition of a network as "a set of interconnecting nodes." Actors, or members, within a cooperative pay a particular fee and thus become members of that network. By being a part of the network, members are granted a certain amount of power within that network. Thus, one cannot access the power within that cooperative's network unless one joins the network itself. Although the power within that cooperative is just one small means of obtaining power within the larger structure of power in society, only those within the network have access to it.
I hope you are now slightly more convinced of the exclusive nature of networking power! Although you do have agency, and in a sense "power", to resist and not join, there is no way to obtain that specific source of power without joining the network.