I first saw this video during one of my undergraduate courses (Sociology of the Media) a few years ago, and thought that it might be interesting to revisit in the context of our course. Though the video is close to an hour long, I'd encourage you all to watch it if you happen to find yourselves with some spare time - I enjoyed watching it just as much the second time as I did the first!
The video is of a presentation by Michael Wesch, a professor at Kansas State University on the history of Youtube and why he finds so much value in it as a cultural object of study. He begins with the story of Numa Numa, and the video produced by Gary Brolsma of himself dancing into his webcam to the song in February of 2005. In April of 2005, Youtube was born, and with it came thousands of videos of people in their homes dancing to Numa Numa in the style of Gary. According to Wesch, "Gary is like the first guy on the dance floor of this global mixer" (4:40). He shows that a quick search of Numa Numa on Youtube produced 58,000 results (This video is quite dated however, so I did a search of my own on Youtube tonight and found that now that number is closer to 1.2 million). Wesch is quick to point out that these people are not dancing to mock Gary, but rather to celebrate new types of community and global connections, transcending space and time, which hadn't been previously known (5:00). Perhaps then, Gary Brolsma's Numa Numa video is an important moment in our world of global connections, as one of the early examples of participatory online communities and remix culture. (Interestingly, some of Wesch's discussion on remixing on Youtube is centered on the many, many versions of Charlie Bit Me, which is a fun tie-in to our discussion last class).
In chapter 3 of Fuchs' book, he provides a list of Jenkins' definitions of participatory culture, being that there are relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing content with others, members who believe their contributions matter, and members who feel some degree of social connection with one another (76, although I am using an e-book of Fuchs and the page numbers differentiate from the hard copy). Based on these definitions, Youtube could be an example of a community which encourages participatory culture among its members. Because Jenkins' definition ignores participatory democracy, which can call issues of ownership and profit into question, there are likely some downsides to the Youtube community which Wesch misses entirely.
Another platform which may be interesting to discuss would be Joseph Gordon-Levitt's HitRecord, which he calls both a social media site as well as a production company. The site encourages users to upload content to the network with the intention of others remixing and building upon their original work, but pays users for any content which generates profit for the company. In this regard, HitRecord encourages more of a participatory democracy than that of the Youtube community, and may be a site to watch for interesting new internet collaboration.
Based on Jenkins' definition of participatory culture, I can understand why YouTube may be the most accurate representation of participatory community (though I am not familiar with HitRecord). However, based on the definition provided in the Fuchs' reading, I would not necessarily claim that our current social media platforms encompass the full extent of what participatory community may imply or can achieve. Maybe sites like Reddit, 4Chan or theChive are be better representations of this concept?
ReplyDeleteKnowing what I know about YouTube, there are still many factors that may not satisfy Jenkins' definition of participatory culture. For instance, some content is limited to age regulations, which prevents users under 18 to readily access it and therefore asks all members to sign in to a YouTube account and verify their age. This is problematic in itself. Another example is that not all content is welcomed on YouTube, just like Facebook or other social media platforms. This restriction on artistic expression may cause users to feel that they are not welcomed on the site, or that their modes of communication do not fit the standards of the YouTube community. Also, just like any social media or participatory online community, users may be potentially subjected to ridicule or negative comments from other users who may not know the content producer, but feel comfortable enough with the anonymity of being in an online space to share hateful comments directed at someone they do not know. This is especially evident with Amanda Hackey, who began uploading videos on YouTube to express her comedic self, but instead began the punchline of horrible and degrading commentary from the YouTube community, insisting that she also stops making these videos. Is this also an element of participatory culture? I guess this is Amanda Hackey's power over the network. She could stop making videos all together, and stop participating in the network - a node that abandons the network. However, by staying active and present on YouTube, she has asserted her power and with that gained the benefits and unfortunately the consequences of remaining a member of that network.
Do you think social media platforms that allow members to upload their content but at the price of criticism that may result from their choices constitute the notion of participatory community? Is this an aspect of networking power that gives the platform power to regulate what stays on the network or what is deemed appropriate for the network?
I really liked this post, and I think there is so much to talk about! While co-creation of value is a prominent aspect of social media, I would be interested in exploring the participatory culture that exists inherently in social media platforms. How can we improve on this notion?
I think that you raise an interesting notion but take issue with a couple of points within your argument. In reaction to your claim about the application of Jenkin’s notion of participatory community to Youtube I find the idea that the platform has a low barrier to access troubling. I would argue that the barriers to access to Youtube are relatively high in a global context. Many peasant communities exist off of electrical or computer grids (which speaks to the issue of the digital divide). While some access to platforms such as Youtube is likely possible, significant barriers to physical infrastructure and literacy concerning use of the platforms are possibly still an issue. As such low barriers to accessing platforms like Youtube are in reality only such for those in command of a considerable amount of wealth in the global context. As a result I do not think that Youtube is a good example of the participatory community that Jenkins describes. I would argue that we should be wary of any platform that serves primarily the wealthy which claims to have ubiquitous access for all.
ReplyDeleteMoving on I also take issue with the idea that a platform such as Hitrecord might embody the participatory democracy that Fuchs describes. Rather I think that the platform is best understood as an interesting, yet problematic, representation of a collaborative work platform. The reasons for this are two-fold: that ownership is private and not democratic and that the platform provides an incentive for the precarious treatment of labourers. The structuring of an alternative payment system (which is not that different from Youtube’s) does not signify the democratic operation of the company. To be truly democratic the organization would have to allow all members of the organization to have a fair opportunity to collaboratively decide the fate and operation of the whole. Additionally paying labourers piecemeal in direct relation to the capital that their work generates rather than a regular wage is representative of the wider move towards precarious employment which is fueled by neo-liberal advocates. Such a power relation externalizes all risk of product creation and distribution to the labourers and rewards the owners of the means of production whenever there is profit. To be democratic the organization would need to take on equal risk in the relation. This might be accomplished by paying a fair and equal wage to all involved in the wider project.
While I appreciate the positive aspects of social media that you highlighted I also think that it is important to recognize systemic manifestations of harmful social practices that might be inherent within them.