The p2p articles...

Shirky: According to Shirky, p2p is a 'horseless carriage'.

Question: What does he mean by this and what is your opinion on this?

Answer: By comparing p2p to a 'horseless carriage' (a car), Shirky wants to point out that p2p is defined by comparing it to what its predecessors were not. In the late 19th, early 20th century, a car was called a horseless carriage, because carriages were what people knew. For them, the difference between a car and a carriage was that a carriage had horses in front of it and a car didn't. Hence the term 'horseless carriage'.

So actually, Shirky is saying that p2p is called 'peer to peer' because the main difference between it and networks as we know them, is the fact that there is direct communication between peers, without having to go through a centralised server.

I think this is a very good way to describe the (relatively new) phenomenon p2p is. It also implicates that, in time, the way we refer to it may change. A car used to be called a horseless carriage, so it s possible that p2p will, someday, be called differently as well.

Rutherford: According to Rutherford SETI@home (or other collaborative computing appliances) are p2p. In class however, William argued that they are not.

Question: With who do you agree on this point?

Answer: As William explained it in class a 'GRID' network like SETI@home works through a number of fixed rules and standards. Because one of p2p's main characteristics is that it is in no way fixed, I'll have to agree with William on this one.

Boase & Wellman: Boase & Wellman give four forms of computer-based viral marketing.

Question: What is your opinion on the list? Is it complete or is something missing?

Answer: The list Boase & Wellman give consists of the following elements:

1: The conscious circulation of petitions or similar appeals
2: The forwarding of rumors or humorous stories
3: The adding of commercial taglines to e-mail (with free e-mail providers like Hotmail or Yahoo)
4: Online games that can be spread online among friends

In my opinion, the first two elements on the list are more or less the same. Especially because a lot of the petitions and/or appeals one receives through e-mail are either fake or so old they have no use anymore. For example: in the past few years I have received an e-mail about a poor boy somewhere in South America that needed surgery really bad countless times. The point about this is obvious: if he needed surgery so bad (he would die soon if he didn't get it), how come five years later he still needs it? And, more importantly, how come he is still alive?

I believe the other two elements on the list cover the viral marketing ground quite well. I do think there is something missing in the last element though. On most news-sites (and some other sites as well) people now have the opportunity to e-mail articles to their friends. This is of course a way of getting more people to be familiar with the site, so that they may visit it themselves in the future. And e-mail articles they find interesting to their friends. And so on and so on.

I noticed I missed the H2O-assignment that was due last week. So here it is...

I think, in a way, participation can be seen as labor, especially in (online) communities that have no real hierarchy (anymore). In these communities, all the people that participate are equal. Maybe there are a few administrators and/or moderators, but they don’t have ay real power; they make sure the community keeps on ‘running’ in the best possible way. Examples of these kinds of communities are for instance the AKT-forum (http://www.let.uu.nl/tftv/akt/forum/forum/index.php) or the ‘unofficial’ Achterklap-forum (http://www.achterklap.nl). These communities were ‘built’ by young, enthusiastic people who wanted to do so. There is no company or anything behind them that regulate what goes on on these communities, the members do that.

 

So in a way, if you participate in a community like this, this is a form of labor. For participating means that you will also have to do your part in maintaining the community you are a part of. For example: to pay for the server and hosting costs, the people who ‘run’ the Achterklap-forum asked its participants to donate a small amount of money, so the cost would be spread under the users. This way, the people that actually keep the community wouldn’t have to be the ones to pay for its existence.

 

Of course there are other ways in which the participants ‘work’ to ensure the continuity of ’their’ communities: for instance by (actively) seeking new members, making sure everybody ‘lives’ by certain rules within the community, organising meetings on which the members can get to know each other personally or simply by thinking and talking about how the community can be improved in the future.      

 

A good example of participation is of course the creation of MODs by (for example) the players of a certain (online) computer game. The gamers create their own content for the game, be it characters, weapons or levels. First and foremost these MODs were meant for personal use, but through the rapid expansion of (broadband) internet connections, gamers began to exchange MODs with each other. So now everyone can use a theme park I built for RollerCoaster Tycoon, or a level someone else made for Unreal.

 

After a while, some MODs got so popular, that the creators could actually charge people for them: you pay the creator of a certain MOD, so that you can download it from him and use it yourself when you play the game it was created for. In a way this blurs the boundaries between producer and consumer of the product (the game). The people that used to be only the consumers (the gamers) have now become the producers of the game as well: they create content for the game, which they sell to others. So this is a sort of de-institutionalisation of the creation of (online) game content. Although the industry has been ‘striking back’ a bit: some gamers that created very popular and good MODs have been offered jobs by game companies. Sometimes by the company that created the game they made their own content for, sometimes by competitors of those companies.

The 2004 presidential elections in the US are the first to have a very noticeable web based build-up: in the democratic pre-elections, every candidate had (or still has) his own weblog. Howard Dean[1] was (one of the) first to start his weblog. On this weblog (which from now on I will refer to as ‘blogs’) Dean kept his followers up to date about his campaign. Ironically, it was George W. Bush who was the last presidential candidate to start his own blog[2]. 

But of course these politicians’ blogs aren’t the only websites that offer politically ‘coloured’ content on the elections; there are lots of sites that do this. For my research paper I am going to focus mainly on two sites: www.punkvoter.com and www.conservativepunk.com.

 

Punkvoter is a website that was set up by a number of (well known) punk rockmusicians, including (among others): Jello Biafra (Dead Kennedys), Fat Mike (NoFX) and Billy Joe Armstrong (Green Day). Their goal is “… to educate, register and mobilize over 500,000 of today’s youth as one voice. We plan to use this election as a way to get our fans engaged in politics and evolve our movement into becoming involved locally to affect real change nationally.”[3] In other words: they are trying to make as many young punk rock fans as possible get themselves registered as voters and vote against Bush (which, in this case, means voting for Kerry). On the website one can find different ways in which the musicians are trying to engage young punks in politics: there is a sort of mission statement[4]; guest columns, written by punk(rock) musicians[5], you can download flyers and stickers[6], and you can buy t-shirts and the like[7]. But this is not all. A few months ago a cd was released, called “Rock Against Bush”. It is a compilation, for which 26 (punk rock) acts have provided a song. There is also a “Rock Against Bush” tour. Although, judging from the site, no dates have been confirmed yet.

 

Conservativepunk is, as the name more or less already says, the Republican ‘brother’ of punkvoter.com. Here the goal is also to make young punk rock fans get themselves registered as voters. The difference is that they are encouraged to vote for Bush, in stead of against him. The site is built up roughly the same way as punkvoter, it all looks very much alike (maybe because conservativepunk was made after punkvoter appeared online?). There is also a mission statement[8], you can read columns (written by less known punks than on punkvoter, but Dave Smalley is fairly well known), and there is a merchandising section (which is not up yet).

 

I think it would be interesting to compare these two sites to each other, mainly on the level of participation (and how they encourage punk rock fans to participate in politics). Therefore, the question I am going to (try to) answer in my paper, will be:

 

In what ways do Punkvoter and Conservativepunk try to make punk rock fans participate in (National) politics? What are the most notable differences and similarities?

In order to find this out I will first have to define what I think participation means. In creating my own definition of participation I will use some articles from the reader as well as a text I have found elsewhere. I think Henry Jenkins’[9] and David Marshall’s[10] texts we read for the first class can be useful here. Also, Stephen Johnson’s book Interface Culture[11] will be useful here, because a large part of it is dedicated to how the web’s interface invites its users to participate in it (and of course the possibilities of participation the internet offers). Furthermore, I think Lessig’s[12] and Dan Harries’[13] text will come in handy for this as well. After I have done this, I will try to link this definition of participation to the classical punk rock notions of D.I.Y. (Do It Yourself) and resistance to just about everything. I think it is very interesting to see how punkvoter.com, as well as conservativepunk.com actually resist existing norms (though both in a different way).

 

For some more political background information, I will look at the Democrat Party website, as well as at the Republican Party website. Also, I will see to what extent I can use the columns that appear on both punkvoter.com and conservativepunk.com. Because none of these texts are academic and I think I am going to need some academic context for this, I will also look at Luuk van Middelaar’s text “On Logos and Grassroots: The Anti-Globalisation Movement Between Morals, Economics and Politics”[14]. 

 

When this groundwork is laid I will proceed to compare the two websites (and maybe some of their peers as well, depending on what I find) to each other and try to point out the most important similarities and differences in the way they (try to) make punk rock fans participate.

 

 

Literature

 

-Jenkins, H. (2002) Interactive Audiences? The ‘Collective Intelligence’ of Media Fans. In: Harries, D. (2002) The New Media Book (London: BFI)

- Marshall, D. (2002) The New Intertextual Commodity. In: Harries, D. (2002) The New Media Book (London: BFI)

- Johnson, S. (1997) Interface Culture; How New Technology Transforms The Way We Create & Communicate. (San Fransisco: Harper)

- Lessig, L. (2001) Innovations from the Internet. In: Lessig, L. (2001) The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Random House)

- Harries, D. (2002) Watching The Internet. In: Harries, D (2002) The New Media Book (London: BFI)

-Middelaar, L. van (2003) On Logos and Grassroots: The Anti-Globalisation Movement Between Morals, Economics and Politics. See: http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/032003_luuk_grassroots.pdf

I'm really falling behind... So today and tomorrow are going to be dedicated to catching up... again.

Because I noticed I forgot to post (or even do) them, even after saying I would. *ashamed*

Nixon: In his article, Nixon explains how Lash & Urry define reflexive modernism. According to them "...reflexive modernism refers to those social processes that are dissolving the contours of industrial society." (Nixon, 2003: 3). He also notes that a feature of the process of reflexive modernity is "... the way social subjects - individuals - are freed from the collective structures of industrial society;..." (Lash & Urry, 1994: 37, quoted in Nixon, 2003: 3). On the other hand this 'freeing' that forces individuals to reflect.

Question: Would it be fair to say Lash & Urry are actually saying reflexive modernity is a necessary condition for itself? 

Answer: I think it would be fair to say so. First they argue that reflexive modernity frees individuals from "...the collective structures of industrial society;..." (Lash & Urry, 1994: 37). Next Nixon explains that it is actually "...this 'freeing' of social subjects from 'social structure' that forces individuals to take more responsibility for the concuct of their lives and to reflect upon the contingency of their social existence." (Nixon, 2003:3) He goes on to conclude: "In other words, it is the 'freeing' of individuals that provides some of the necessary conditions for reflexivity." (Nixon, 2003: 3)

As far as I can make out what he is actually saying comes down to: reflexive modernity frees individuals from the collective structures of industrial society. This freeing forces people to reflect upon their conduct and their lives. So actually, reflexive modernity leads to reflexive modernity.

McRobbie: According to McRobbie, work has become the only way to provide oneself of personal security, and the very idea of social security has faded into insignificance (McRobbie, 2002: 99-100)

Question: How does she reach this conclusion and do you agree with it?

Answer: McRobbie reaches this conclusion by summing up the ways in which the Brittish (or English) government has tried to get people back to work: promoting equality (stopping women being paid less than men for doing the same work), promoting older unemployed people to get back into work et cetera. She also notes that, while people are being 'pushed'  to get working and, more importantly, keep working, the public sector and public services have been devaluated and  (even) deflated. This has last thing started during the government of Mrs. Thatcher, but is still going on unabated.

If you put 1 and 2 together, you will inevitably reach the same conclusion as McRobbie does: work is increasingly becoming the only way to provide personal security. Because of the devaluation of public and saocial services, you will not have this personal security if you don't have a job. So the only way you can make sure you will 'survive'  if you will ever be out of work, is to work a lot and save money, so you have a sort of financial buffer in case you lose your job or suffer an injury which makes me physically unfit to keep doing your job.  

Which will be my feedback on Anouk Ponjee's answer to the Jenkins-question.

Anouk's Response:

If i am understanding what Jenkins is trying to point out with his
statement, that when the media is making the spectators visible then it's
wrong to assume that we are liberated through improved media, than i
agree with him.
The media tries to get more attention of the spectators by making it
visible and the spectators will feel more close to the media and to other
viewers, but i'm sure we are not liberated in that way. The
spectatorship of the media does not have to mean that we are liberated en when
technologies are improved is does not heve to lead to more visible work of
the media.

My Feedback:

Although I agree with your view to this quote, I think you could have elaborated a bit more on what you really mean. For instance: when you say "The media tries to get more attention of the spectators by making it visible and the spectators will feel more close to the media and to other viewers, but i'm sure we are not liberated in that way." What do you really mean? What way is that way? For the rest there's not really anything I can comment on: just try to be more specific in your answers in the future.

Right... I noticed yesterday I have a lot of catching up to do, so this is my attempt to really do this.

First things first: the first rotisserie assignment:

Q: Jenkins (2002) writes on p. 1
"If the current media environment makes visible the once invisible work of media spectatorship, it is wrong to assume that we are somehow being liberated through improved media technologies." What is your opinion about this statement?

ok, this is going to be a little bit of an experiment, because my notes on todays class aren't really that extensive. (at least not on this point, which is a pity).

anyway, what i've been thinking about...

in class william urricchio talked about how, in the states, people aren't citizens and/or voters (anymore), they're consumers. even news is part of this: it's not about receiving news that you think is important but about choosing a news broadcast (eg: cnn or nbc or abc) that 'fits' you best.

what i was wondering is if this is the case in canada as well. having been there (if only for two weeks) and having experienced how canadians hate to be seen as americans. also i noticed how (most?) canadians are much more interested in what happens abroad than americans are. we were in quebec on the day pim fortuyn was killed and the day after, whenever the subject of us being dutch came up, the 'quebecois' immediately started talking and asking questions about it, even though all we (and them, of course) had seen of it was a tiny (and i mean tiny) item on cnn and/or cbc.

of course when thinking about this bowling for columbine immediately springs to mind. michael moore mentions how canada is so much different from the us: even though there's the same amount of fire-arms per person (or is it the same amount of fire-arms in the absolute sense, i forgot) there are significantly less (fire-arm 'based') murders. moore links this with the difference in subjects on the news in both countries.

so, anybody else got any ideas on this?

If Everything went according to plan, I should be on time this time ;). Anyway: this week's questions...


Küng-Shankleman: According to Shein, culture is: "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learned as it solved its problem of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore is taught to new members of the group as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relations to those problems." (Schein, 1992: 12). He also says that: "Culture is to the organisation what character is to the individual." (Schein, Ibidem: 196) 

Question: Do you think culture in groups and character in an individual can be compared to each other this way?

Answer: I think it is possible (allthough maybe not always) to do so. Küng-Shankleman explains Shein's concept of culture as follows: "Culture is especially, therefore, nothing more than the accumulated learning sharde by a set of members of an organisation. This learning has been acquired as the group deals with the challenges posed by the environment and by the organisation as it develops and matures. In the course of this problem-solving process a number of precepts emerge which repeatedly prove themselves effective. These represent a set of basic tacit assumptions about how the world is and ought to be, assumptions which determine perceptions, thoughts, feelings and, to some degree, overt behaviour. They come to function as heuristics, shortcuts for future problem-solving. New members learn these assumptions as part of their socialisation, and thus the culture is perpetuated." (Kühn-Shankleman, 2000: 9)  

If you would change this quote from plural to singular (apply it to one person in stead of to a group of people), you would get a good idea of what builds character in an individual. On the other hand it might all be a little bit simplistic, but who said a complex theory is better than a simple one?

De Mooij: In this chapter, De Mooij speaks (when talking about the work of Edward Hall) of high-context culture and low-context culture.

Question: What kind of culture do we 'have' here in The Netherlands?

Answer: If you look at Dutch culturein the way Hall and De Mooij talk about, one would say that it is mostly a low-context culture. People tend to attribute a high value to (spoken) words and rhetoric. The people that are considered to be the most important in 'developing' Dutch culture mostly did so by what they said or wrote. Examples of this are people like Spinoza, Erasmus, Vondel and Thorbecke. On the other hand, there are also a lot of important historical figures whose attribution to Dutch culture is mainly (or at least partially) symbolic. Willem van Oranje, Michiel de Ruyter, Anne Frank, Hansje Brinker (Is that his name? The guy that put his finger in the dyke..) and Johan Cruyff are better known for what they did and/or sybolise than fore what they say (although Johan Cruyff is trying hard to change this by taking a lot of words to say very little about soccer, which seems to be one of our main cultural goods these days).

If you take a look at commercials in The Netherlands, I think it is fair to say that most of them can be seen as low-context messages: you don't need any specific symbolic knowledge to understand them. There are of course some commercials that do ask that of the viewers (to keep it simple, I'll talk about tv-commercials, seeing these are most widely accesible). A few years ago there was a commercial for Centraal Beheer in which you saq cross-cutting between Bill Clinton holding a speach and a  guy in a museum playing with a voodoo doll. One has to be familiar with the things a voodoo doll symbolises to be able to understand this commercial.

In short: I don't think you can say the Dutch culture is either low-context or high-context. In the few examples I have provided there are elements of both to be found, and personally I think this goes for a lot (if not anything) of Dutch culture.


Right... that's it for now... I'll try to put the rest up tomorrow...

Soooo... Time for some new questions.

Hutchby: Hutchby thinks Grint and Woolgar "... deny themselves the opportunity of empirically analysing precisely what the 'effects' and 'constraints' associated with technological forms are." (Hutchby, 2001: 26) by ignoring the affordances which constraint the possible meanings and the possible uses of technologies. Do you agree with Hutchby?

Answer: I think Hutchby is right. I think the best example of this can be read on page 24 of Hutchby's article. Here Hutchby talks about how Grint and Woolgar spent an entire chapter arguing against Kling's (1992) claim that the way they look at technology fails to acknowledge that the damage a bullet fired from a gun does to flesh and bone is intrinsic to the gun and the bullet. And that this can't be changed by any social construction whatsoever. According to Hutchby, they "...fail to dismiss the simple point that 'physical objects like guns and roses have some capabilities which are not only arbitrarily derived from the talk about them. It is much harder to kill a platoon of soldiers with a dozen roses than with well placed high speed bullets' (Kling, 1992: 362, cited in Grint and Woolgar 1997: 154)." (Hutchby, 2001: 24). If Grint and Woolgar would have recognised that guns and roses have different affordances, they wouldn't have made such a stupid (because that's what it is, if you think about it) argument.