Untitled

[farahangullia]

Wearables & Self-Knowledge (by Farah Angullia, BP10)

In “Our metrics, ourselves: A hundred years of self-tracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device”, Crawford, Lingel and Karppi (2015) introduce two cases of self-tracking - wearables and the weight scale - to show the intersections between the person experience of self-measurement and big data. They argue that the production and use of big data of the body has epistemological, legal and physiological implications. Their line of argument begins with a historical account of the weight scale and its evolving roles and locations, followed by an analysis of the emergence of wearable self-tracking devices, then expand their understanding of said devices by inspecting advertising campaigns of both these devices as well as its role in legal settings. By considering various perspectives, they can better understand the evolving relationships between data, bodies, and power.

In their analysis of the wearable self-tracking device, they raise the Quantified Self movement, defined as: “Any individual engaged in the self-tracking of any kind of biological, physical, behavioral or environmental information. There is a proactive stance toward obtaining information and acting on it.” (Swan, 2013, p. 85). Crawford et al specifically place their focus on the group of wearables users who do not self-identify with this movement or build relationships with other users. These users are typically more focused on individual betterment, or betterment as they perceive it, of their physical, mental, or behavioral self.

These observations are applicable to users of the Apple watch. The Apple watch is unique, as compared to other wearable self-tracking device, as self-tracking is but one of the many functions of the watch. It acts as an even more portable version of a personal device, such as a phone, while also able to track a person’s heart rate, breathing rate, speed of walking, number of steps walked, and more. Focusing on the group of users who do not self-identify with the Quantified Self movement, I would argue for the increasing integration of this movement with the daily practices of wearables users, to the extent they no longer need to identify with the movement. For instance, for Apple watch users, a bulk of them are already Apple users to begin with. A significant portion of them already own iPhones or MacBooks. Hence, instead of identifying themselves as part of the Quantified Self movement, they are more likely to simply identify as Apple users. This means that self-tracking is slowly growing to become an essential facet to the experience of Apple (and other smartphone) users worldwide.

Self-tracking, and by extension, perceived self-knowledge, is slowly becoming more and more of a common phenomenon, without the need for users to even recognise that they are partaking in a defined movement of any sort. With respect to Crawford et al’s analysis, the latter group of wearables users are expanding and becoming the predominant group. As a result, self-tracking is becoming an integrated part of users’ daily lives. Henceforth, it is efficiently acting the role of a self-extension, thereby implicating its use in formal settings, such as in the court of law. It is inevitable that in the near future, wearables are likely to be seen as a legitimate piece of evidence or witness in any legal battle.

This makes the technology behind such wearables ethically problematised. The improvement of such technologies to be more accurate, more timely, and more precise now has a greater ethical responsibility, given its integration into the lifestyles of numerous users worldwide. Such technology has to have the capacity to reliably and correctly reflect user’s movements and behaviors, precisely because of its integral role in daily life.

[farahangullia]

Intimacy & Influencers (by Farah Angullia, BP9)

In 'Intimacy, Cosmopolitanism and Digital Media: A Research Manifesto', Lambert (2019) explores the idea of intimacy in great depth. He touches upon three main areas: the ambiguity of intimacy, the formal metaphysics of intimacy and cosmopolitanism, and how this helps disclose a variety of new research opportunities.

In his analysis of the ambiguity of intimacy in existing literature, he introduces the idea that intimacy is built through conversational presence, expressed as 'continuous insignificant chatter' and 'sharing of the everyday'.

In recent years, "influencers", or small-scale celebrities, have become a global online phenomenon. They are prominent online personae who share about their lives or are seen to be experts in a certain field. Often, influencers are tapped on by companies as part of their marketing strategy, to promote products on their social media in order to drive sales. In fact, an article by Business Insider revealed that 'brands are set to spend up to $15 billion on influencer marketing by 2022, per Insider Intelligence estimates, based on Mediakix data'.

This led me to think: what makes influencers effective mediums for the marketing of products, as opposed to traditional advertising? Lambert's (2019) analysis made it clear: influencers are able to promote products because of the trust and intimacy they have built with their followers online. This intimacy is built through the 'conversational presence' that Lambert (2019) highlights. Influencers regularly post on social media in a bid to build an imagined intimate relationship with their followers. Influencer are known to be 'relatable' or down-to-earth, and this is essential to their brand. Influencers like Emma Chamberlain and Summer McKeen have garnered millions of followers, and they have done so by posting regularly (multiple times daily, even!) on social media, as well as posting vlogs or video blogs on YouTube and other video-sharing platforms. These content, when consumed by their followers, create a sense of familiarity and closeness with them. It closes the perceived distance between an influencer and his/her follower, thereby building a sense of trust and familiarity with an individual who would otherwise be a stranger.

Returning to the idea of influencers as effective marketers or intermediaries, brands have, for a while now, recognised the increasingly crucial role of influencers in marketing. Brands seek to leverage on the trust that influencers have built with their followers in order to promote a product to them. It is only natural for us to seek product recommendations or take seriously the advice or recommendations a person we trust offers to us. As a result, influencer marketing has taken off incredibly in recent years, with billions of dollars being spent on it across industries.

Overall, Lambert's (2019) analysis of intimacy offers us a lens to understand the success of influencers in marketing and advertising.

[farahangullia]

Choosing lighter skin colour for online avatars: Games as both pain reliever and replica of non-virtual life (by Farah Angullia, BP8)

Pelletier (2005) applies Zizek's concept of interpassivity to analyse educational play. Interpassivity refers to the way digital technologies position people as responders; otherwise referred to as 'interactivity'. In doing so, she recognises four different versions of cyberspace or functions of games: games as pain relievers, games as sensual temptations, games as replicas of non-virtual life, and games as dramatic stages for reality construction. Using these four versions of cyberspace, she highlights various ways in which the interpassivity of cyberspace shapes one's experience of games.

I would like to draw attention to the dichotomy between 'games as pain relievers' and 'games as replicas of non-virtual life'. The two seem to be jarringly contrasting. For instance, in the act of identity construction online, while cyberspace has the capacity to 'free us from the authority of traditional social structures', therefore relieving us of the pain of everyday life and the weight that comes with our offline identity, we simultaneously carry our real-world Oedipal complex into the online world, thereby projecting our offline experiences into our online identity construction. Hence, is it truly possible to detach the online from the offline worlds?

In thinking about this paradox, I reflected on my own experiences of identity construction online. When I was younger and less aware of my biases and prejudices, I used to deliberately select lighter skin colours for my online personae, thinking that it was 'nicer' or 'prettier' than darker ones. In hindsight, this act was one of violence against my Malay-Indian identity, and a reflection of my own internalised racism. In spite of this, because of this empowerment to select my own physical appearance online, I was able to carry myself with greater confidence at a young age, feeling like I 'fit in' with the majority and could therefore afford myself 'privileges' like subtly better treatment from others. Applying Pelletier's two versions of cyberspace to this example, I was able to relieve myself from the pains of being a minority in Singapore, the assumptions and prejudices others held about me based on my physical appearance, and escape the authority of traditional social structures. At the same time, I was projecting my beliefs and experiences into the cyberspace, while perpetuating my own prejudices against my own ethnicity.

Now, I am able to reflect on these experiences and recognise the various powers cyberspace holds on my very real experience of the world. Though the two functions of cyberspace seem contradictory, in reality, I was able to understand how I was both relieved of the pain I felt in my daily experiences, and also create a replica of my non-virtual life within the game I was playing, as much as I attempted to escape it.

[farahangullia]

Malays as lazy, criminal, and deviant: Bourdieu’s misrecognition and symbolic violence of Malays in Singapore (by Farah Angullia, BP7)

[farahangullia]

Criticisms of Singapore’s (Transport) Sharing Economy (by Farah Angullia, BP6)

In Ravenelle's (2019) analysis of the sharing economy, she first attempts to define the sharing economy. Though she raised many variations of its definition, she eventually frames it as 'a collection of app-based technologies that focus on the lending or renting of assets or services, either for profit or a higher good'. She focuses on sharing economy platforms that provide a source of work and income, as well as claim to bring entrepreneurship or financial stability to the masses, including Uber and AirBNB.

Through her analysis, she attempts to examine the lived experiences of the sharing economy by its workers, the extent to which workers consider themselves as entrepreneurs, workers or sharers, and the types of skills and capital workers bring to the table.

She raises three theoretical themes which help to engage with these questions: technology reading to the revival of trust and community, the increasing casualisation of labour with a related shift in risk, and the resulting increase in social inequalities.

She firstly argues that technology and cities has made social connections more abstract, trust reduced, and anonymity, much like Ferdinand Tonnies' concept of Gesellschaft, as opposed to his concept of Gemeinshaft, which refers to a community built upon primary relations, informal sanctions, and social traditions. Though she acknowledges that the sharing economy adds some level of personality to the interactions made through its platforms, they are ultimately sterile and anonymous, as customers are less focused on fostering social relationships as they are on lower costs and convenience offered by these platforms. She also highlights the ways in which technology eases discriminatory practices, as opposed to its original intent of democratising entrepreneurship for all.

She then argues that the casualisation of labour has occurred due to the rise of the sharing economy, as workers are treated as independent contractors instead of employees, which exposes them to greater risk and less compensation. She also analyses the differences in the experience of instability for different social classes; for the upper class, this instability feels more like flexibility, whereas for the lower class, it feels more like vulnerability, affecting their personal relationships. Additionally, she draws a distinction between subsistence and transformational entrepreneurs, arguing that for most users, the sharing economy mainly acts to support families rather than make workers richer.

Lastly, she argues that the sharing economy ultimately deepens social inequalities, as it most prominently makes the rich richer. Professionals, or those with already significant capital, tend to outperform amateurs significantly, as they do in the general economy. This widens the divide between the upper and lower classes, challenging the idea of the sharing economy as a great leveller.

Ravenelle's analyses rings true for Singaporeans and the sharing economy in Singapore, as well. During the COVID-19 Circuit Breaker period in Singapore, many lost their full-time jobs and were forced to find other sources of income, in a time where the economy was struggling to stay afloat. As a result, many turned to food delivery platforms, such as Grab and Foodpanda, to provide for themselves and their families, and get by during a trying period. In the media, such sharing economy platforms were hailed as saviours and glorified as platforms which empowered the layman. Those who already owned vehicles such as Personal Mobility Devices or bicycles could sign up as a Grab delivery person and start to earn a small income. However, what was not portrayed or widely understood was the risks associated with such precarious forms of work.

Applying Ravenelle's theme of trust and community, particularly to Grab ride-hailing services, users relied heavily on the ratings system built into the Grab platform to pre-determine their experiences with their driver. Unfortunately, a number of Grab drivers lost their jobs as Grab maintains a strict policy of not allowing their drivers to fall below a rating of approximately 4.5 stars out of 5. In a time of large distrust and insecurity, such reviews system only further entrenched the distrust between members of the community, and ended up damaging the lives of said drivers.

Applying her second theme of the increased risk of labour, as Grab views its workers as independent contractors, workers and their vehicles are not protected in the case of any damage, harm, or any other form of risk involved. Workers are not treated as employees with insurance and healthcare benefits, and are forced to shoulder the financial burden in the face of any risk. For instance, if one were to get injured on the job, Grab would not be liable for said injury, and the worker would likely turn to his earnings from Grab to shoulder said cost. This echoes Ravenelle's analysis of the difference in the experience of instability for lower class workers, as these costs would inadvertently place a strain on the families of these workers as well, who relied on the earnings made by them.

Lastly, though not as prominently as the other two themes, the final theme can also ring true in the example of Grab. Those with cars earn more than those with bicycles, especially in GrabExpress services, and so they naturally would earn more than their counterparts. Though this in itself may not be seen as significant, going back to the example of sharing transporting services, the owners of bike-sharing services, such as SG Bike, are people with already significant capital who can afford to own several bikes, which users pay for to use.

All in all, Ravenelle's analyses are largely applicable in Singapore's sharing economy as well.

[farahangullia]

Participatory Democracy behind the Shot on iPhone Challenge (by Farah Angullia, BP5)

In his article 'Social Media as Participatory Culture', Fuchs (2014) argues that, on one hand, Henry Jenkins' (2009) concept of participatory culture is one that is reductionist in that it overlooks the inherently political implications of participation. On the other hand, participatory democracy offers a more comprehensive analysis of the functions of the Internet by acknowledging the effects of ownership, capitalism and class. Fuchs goes on to  illustrate the ways in which the Internet's feature of participation have potentially unsavoury effects, including but not limited to economic crises, the exploitation of users, privacy violations, and e-waste. In his words, 'participatory democracy is a demand that speaks against such problems while participatory culture is a rather harmless concept'.

An example of the way participatory culture and participatory democracy differ in their outlooks of Internet participation is the 'shot on iPhone' challenge by Apple. The challenge is simple; iPhone users shoot pictures on their iPhone and upload them onto social media with the hashtag #shotoniPhone. Some of these pictures are selected and reproduced by Apple as a means of promoting the quality of their iPhone cameras. Jenkins' (2009) participatory culture would frame this challenge as a unique way of a large company, such as Apple, utilising social media to interact with their consumers in an intimate manner. On top of that, Apple can be seen to promote creativity and content creation by featuring and crediting these individuals by including their name in the reproduction of their pictures. All in all, participatory culture would deem this challenge entirely harmless and even one that is positive.

Participatory democracy allows us to see that there may be much more happening beneath the surface. The issue of exploitation arises when we question the way Apple handles submitted pictures. On Apple's website, it is stated that 'if your photo is selected to be featured on a billboard, you further agree to grant Apple exclusive commercial use of the photo for the life of the license.' In other words, the picture now belongs to Apple and can be used by them however they want. This leaves us wondering whether it is a fair cost; promotion of creators in exchange for ownership of content. Though creators are promoted and recognised, they are not paid for their work. As a result, Apple is able to gain ownership over quality work at no cost. As a large company which has the unquestionable ability to compensate these creators, they have made a deliberate choice not to. Though the Internet has enabled collaboration, sharing and content creation, these capabilities are being used to exploit creators who could have, instead, been offered adequate compensation.

This issue has been recognised by many, as seen in an article by Julia Alexander of The Verge: 'Apple changes its iPhone photo contest page to say it will pay winners'. As a result of growing frustration by creators, Apple updated the original newsroom announcement for the challenge, saying 'Apple believes strongly that artists should be compensated for their work. Photographers who shoot the final 10 winning photos will receive a licensing fee for use of such photos on billboards and other Apple marketing channels'.

In conclusion, the participatory democracy perspective reveals to us the underlying political and economic issues behind Internet participation, in a way that participatory culture does not.

[farahangullia]

Marvel & Superhero Movies (by Farah Angullia, BP4)

Horkheimer and Adorno (2001) argue in 'The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception' that the commodification of culture has reduced the world of cultural products to a homogenous wasteland of what was once richly creative and diverse.

The transformation of culture to a 'business', they argue, is 'used as an ideology to legitimise the trash they intentionally produce'. This intentionality is articulated through the close analysis of the audience – the 'filmgoer' – whose taste and preferences the culture industry essentially revolves around. During our lecture on media industries, Dr. Avadhani aptly and poignantly points out that this eventually results in the homogenisation of cultural products Horkheimer and Adorno warn against, because essentially the audience's taste and preferences are moulded by what they have seen the culture industry produce in the past.

Horkheimer and Adorno are especially sceptical of what they believe is the imminent ideological domination by the few key players in the culture industry who are now in control of the bulk of the media audiences consume, such as Walt Disney, which released 19 movies in 2019 alone.

In this blogpost, I will critique the idea of homogeneity by Horkheimer and Adorno using the example of superhero films and, particularly, the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Although Marvel has accumulated a sizeable fan base, they have also been critiqued as harshly for the repetitive, predictable superhero narratives it injects into cinemas across the globe. In NM3224, we dove in depth into the example of Marvel as a key producer of cultural products, namely, superhero movies. They have become our standard and our staple when discussing superhero movies. With regards to Marvel, I largely agree with Horkheimer and Adorno's criticism of the homogeneity of cultural products in view of the domination of a handful of key players dominating the culture industry. Marvel movies tend to be repetitive and predictable, but it is the very fact that Marvel movies are one success after another that traps us in this loop of repetition and predictability. Marvel continuously produces films of such high quality but with familiar plot lines because and for as long as audiences continue to pay to watch these movies. This criticism became the most prevalent and the most dominant in the release of Avengers: Endgame. Though fans had been looking forward to and anticipating the release of this film, there had been equally adverse reactions to the film, as fans claimed it was dissatisfactory because of its tokenistic events. In one of the final scenes of the film, the various heroes within the Marvel Cinematic Universe came together to defeat Thanos. It was meant to be a grand moment but some fans felt that the characters had had minimal interaction prior to the scene and so the scene felt very superficial and shallow. This is a clear example of Marvel attempting to cater to their perception of audience's tastes and preferences, but perhaps not executing it as cleanly as they had intended to.

[farahangullia]

Mobile Media & The Personalisation of Urban Places (by Farah Angullia, BP3)

Ito, Okabe and Anderson (2017) conducted a study to explore the ways in which portable devices (or 'mobile media') redefine the ways in which 'contemporary urbanites', specifically those residing in Los Angeles, Tokyo, and London, interact with their urban environment. They were able to construct a conceptual framework based on the 'media kits' these individuals carried around with them outside of the home and office, and used to engage with various interfaces. In the study, they presented three 'genres of presence': cocoons, encampments, and footprints. I found this reading extremely enjoyable and oddly familiar, as if reading into my own life and experiences. I had, myself, created cocoons, encampments, and footprints in my own life, and so their findings were largely applicable to myself and my observations of the lives of other city dwellers. In this reflection piece, I will be analysing the various features of cocoons, as well as providing examples and evaluations of them.

The first genre of presence I will be unpacking is cocoons. A cocoon is defined as 'a private territory within the confines of urban space'. Cocoons are typically formed in transits or movements between more permanent and desirable places within cities, becoming a boundary between the individual and the social world around them. Ito et al. (2017) highlight the various features of cocoons, positing that they 'transform dead time in incidental locations into time that is personally productive or enriching'. This led me to reflect on my habit of listening to podcasts on my phone while on public transport. What would otherwise be 'dead time', or time spent unproductively in a space I had no choice but to be in to arrive at my desired destination, had been transformed into time that was 'personally productive' and 'enriching'. Just the other day I was listening to my team's own podcast about Islam and its stance on the hustle culture. I was exploring some ideas we had developed just a few weeks back and thinking about ways we could dive deeper into these ideas – all while being surrounded by strangers and trapped in an MRT for thirty minutes.

Cocoons have also given rise to social tensions, such as 'the leakage between personal sound and public sound' which 'fails to adhere to the norm of cocooning of personal media' (Ling, 2002; Okabe and Ito, 2005). I found it especially intriguing that, beyond simply empowering us to do more with our time in what would otherwise be unproductive spaces, mobile media has also created this area of anxiety for city dwellers, as a result of our expectations of public spaces changing. These changing expectations manifest in what we consider 'norm(s)', as mentioned above. The word 'norm' provoked my understanding of public spaces, as, previously, I had not imagined this to be a norm arising from a collective change in expectations. Interestingly, the line between social tension and respectfulness is extremely fine. If a person puts on headphones and is clearly listening to music on their phone, it is argued to be a 'respectful' way of avoiding interactions with others. However, as soon as a person disrupts another person's private cocoon by attempting to speak to them while they are in said cocoon, it gives rise to these social tensions. Hence, this fine line makes evident the evolving expectations of other urban dwellers, and the increased desire for privacy and aloneness in public spaces.

To sum up, cocoons are an incredibly fascinating social practice to me due to their various features which we are only beginning to fully understand. Moving forward, I would be keen on exploring the effects of the transformative potential of cocoons (i.e. converting 'dead time' into productive time) on city dwellers' understandings of time and productivity, as well as the effects of the evolving expectations of public and social environments on the sociality and individuality of urbanites, given the rise of cocoons.

[farahangullia]

Domestic Media (by Farah Angullia, BP2)

Spigel (2015) articulates a number of ways television (TV) has transformed the spaces of everyday life, particularly the home. The domestic space has traditionally been framed as a safe haven. As TV gradually became another essential item in the home come the 1950s, it began to mediatise our lives in a space once considered sacrosanct.

Spigel's argument that in the 1950s, the TV was seen as a spatial apparatus to bring families together, while also driving them apart, was especially poignant. This view was not uncommon, as depicted in this scene in Matilda (1996). In this scene, Matilda's father forces her to watch TV with the rest of the family over dinner, although she initially resists because she would prefer reading her book. Matilda's father forcefully positions her head towards the TV, as the family descends into manic laughter. Finally, the TV symbolically explodes in front of them at the peak of their laughter. This scene was especially prominent to me because it articulates Spigel's concerns of the TV being a unifying force, being seen as an 'electronic hearth' of the home, while also, ironically, being isolating. As families watch TV programmes together over dinner, the experience becomes especially individualistic as family members no longer communicate with one another. Rather, they indulge in individual entertainment, and the influence of TV on families becomes one that is divisive when left unchecked. Taking a step back, such representations of TV in films like Matilda (1996) become ironic because they shed light on TV's transformative influence on families while themselves being programmes aired on TV. This, in itself, articulates the permanence of TV, in some form, in our lives.

Hence, instead of positioning the TV as merely a tool of either unity or division, thereby dichotomising the role of TV in the home, one can alternatively argue that the TV has become a medium through which a family channels its values, while also itself mediatising the home in ways which families have little control over. In the example of Matilda (1996), the family was, from the beginning, portrayed as self-indulgent, narcissistic and cared little for knowledge. Hence, for them, the TV amplified these pre-existing values, and echoed them into their domestic space. Conversely, TV is not merely a tool subject to use, but it in itself is able to influence the dynamics of the home in a way no other piece of furniture is able to. The TV, for Matilda, became a representation of mindlessness and stupidity; something she was constantly trying to escape by indulging herself in books and reading. (The dichotomy between old and media in this movie is something else we should problematise, but that is for another blogpost.) In this sense, the TV had a 'life of its own' and in some ways, became a force through which her parents were able to attempt to control her and influence her values as a growing child.

All in all, Spigel has articulated a concern and criticism of TV that is commonplace in, at least, American society, as represented through film.

[farahangullia]

Mediatization & the Experience of Media (by Farah Angullia, BP1)

It takes little more than a quick scroll through the Technology page on the New York Times website to detect the line journalists and writers, therefore arguably reflective of society, continue to draw between Man and new media technologies. It is this very way of thinking that Kember & Zylinka (2015) call for us to shift away from - the notion that new media exists as 'a set of discrete objects' - and to gradually begin to recognise that Man and media are deeply intertwined on a 'socio-cultural and biological level'. For far too long, we have portrayed media as tools or 'things at our disposal', such as our use of social media as a tool, when in reality, they have become so ingrained and essential to us, our habits and daily practices. The view that they are separate from us is archaic, in times where it is barely possible for most of us to get through our day without some form of media practice - from paying for our morning coffee with our phones, to scrolling through Twitter in our daily commute - which become second nature to us and hence, our lives and communications become more than just mediated, but mediatized.

Netflix documentary 'The Social Dilemma' illustrates the way that social media and associated technologies, such as the iPhone, run deep in our lives. Even as the documentary challenged my personal understanding of media as a tool, inviting me to understand that we are not using technology and media, but that they are using us, this view is equally deterministic as the view I previously held. The question always seems to be, 'who is in control?'. What we consistently fail to recognise is that, by assuming the power is either in the hands of media or Man, we are engaging with a false binary; that media and Man are two wholly separate entities is an idea that no longer offers us a holistic understanding of the relationship between the two.

I largely agree with Kember & Zylinska's argument, as it has enabled me to understand the intimate relationship between Man and media in a way that deterministic arguments do not. I came across a number of articles about 'digital detoxes' or variations of the idea of disconnecting from media, which led me to wonder why we find it such a challenge to regulate our usage of media. Deterministic arguments which position media as a tool or external force fail to explain this phenomenon! However, the concept of mediatization explains how media has gradually evolved to transform us, as human beings, and our ways of life. It has transformed the way we interact, the way cultures interact, the way we speak, the words we use, the power dynamics within society and its institutions; media has fundamentally injected itself into every crevice and corner of our lives and thus, it does not make sense to continue to view it as an entity entirely separate from us. Mediatization is the first step we can take to understand the dynamic and complex relationship between man and media.