NM3205 Blog Posts

[horoanne]

Blog Post 10: Wearables And The Quantified Self (Roanne Ho)

Crawford, Lingel and Karppi (2015) explore the ways in which wearable technologies can affect impressions about self-knowledge and self-improvement. Contending with the claim that tracking devices encourage ‘self-knowledge through numbers’ which in turn allows individuals to make modifications to their lifestyle in order for improvement, Crawford et al. argue that such data may not be as accurate as presented in its advertisements/marketing ploys. It hides the fact that these standards on physical health and wellbeing may be subjective, and how data collected could be used or sold for a profit (e.g. data mining). Hence, the emerging culture of personal data - built on the belief that self-tracking leads to self improve - could create a false sense of control over the body - when in actual fact, could contribute to another source of bodily surveillance/control that enforces particular kinds of individual discipline.

While raising such issues of contention is useful in reminding users to view wearable tracking devices more critically and not take everything as it is, I would like to argue the article by Crawford et al. overlook other aspects of values that such wearables have brought - which can lead to actual self-improvement or benefits. For instance, AireSone Junior is a consumer wearable device that tracks a child’s heart rate, respiratory rate and sleep quality. Connected to a smartphone app, parents are able receive real-time alerts and updates when abnormalities are detected. This device is targeted at children with respiratory conditions such as asthma, which proves to be highly useful in empowering parents with the knowledge (i.e. respiratory rate) that may not be easily attainable without the device - especially if the child is not in sight (e.g. sleeping in another room). In situations like these, the quantifiable data that tracking devices provide act as a powerful ‘voice’ that translates the wellbeing of younger children who may not know how to express their discomfort. This exemplifies how the data provided by some wearable tracking devices could enable users to seek actual improvements in physical health - and the data stored can even be shared with their relevant medical professionals who can offer additional support in their advice based on the respiratory charts shown on the app. 

Therefore, as much as wearable tracking devices could create tensions regarding the connection between data, self-knowledge and self-improvement, other aspects of benefits should also be considered in order to examine the effects of wearables more holistically.

[horoanne]

Blog Post 9 (Roanne Ho): The Ambiguous Concept of Intimacy With The Rise Of Digital Media

Lambert (2019) attempts to contextualise the (ambiguous) concept of intimacy within this increasingly globalised and interconnected world. Intimacy can be understood in many different ways, from the conventional social relationships to a completely personal experience of media technology - e.g. using AirPods and creating an isolated ‘bubble’ when commuting or navigating urban spaces. Digital media has been integrated into culturally specific practices of intimacy, whereby technological tools such as the internet and smartphones have facilitated, maintained and transformed the way we think about relationships and communication.

With this, I would like to bring in the example of a mobile tracking application called Zenly to illustrate the ambiguous nature of intimacy in the face of an increasingly digital society. Zenly is a free smartphone app that allows people to track their friends’ live location via a map. Besides physical movement, the app also displays whether the users are currently at home, work or school (automatically detected based on one’s location history/algorithm). In Singapore, this app had gained popularity - especially among the younger generation - simply because having real-time updates about their peers were appealing to them (Choo, 2019).

“Through the app, I was able to find out what schools they went to, where they lived, where they hung out after school and the route they took to get home — all without speaking to them.”  - Singaporean teenager who uses the app (Choo, 2019)

The Zenly app portrays the ‘dark side’ of intimacy as it gets entangled with the issue privacy, resulted from the affordances of media technologies. While the tracking function can be put to good use and mediate social relationships positively (e.g. parents checking if kids are home safely), such use of monitoring one’s physical movements and behaviour can be a double-edged sword. Security risk is being one major concern.

Hence, the function of location-tracking becomes a kind of sociality, whereby there is a dialectic between the private sphere and public. With this blurring of boundaries between the ‘online’ and ‘offline’, ethical issues arises along with the transforming culturally specific practices of intimacy. This calls for the need to integrate the study of cosmopolitanism into the discourse of intimacy, in order to better understand how technology is transforming the traditional idea of intimacy.

Reference: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/more-students-using-zenly-app-parents-concerned-about-location-tracking-function  

[horoanne]

Blog Post 8 (Ho Roanne) Games as an Extension of the Real World?

Pelletier (2005) identifies two main attractive points of computer games that policy-makers and education researchers have come to adopt: its interactivity and inherent pleasures. Using Žižek’s notion of interpassivity and his 4 versions of the cyberspace, the opportunities that educational play can offer is explored. It is found that the subjectivity in cyberspace will lead to various effects (not necessarily positive or negative), conceptualising game play as a social practice involving power relations.

Relating back to Žižek’s first version of the cyberspace - “game as pain relievers”, the cyberspace indeed frees users from the authority of traditional social structures (e.g. the capitalist work ethic, class system etc.), and replaces the pain from learning with pleasure brought about by play/games instead. This can be exemplified through virtual games such as SIMS and MapleStory which allow users to interact and perform social activities (similar to the real-life) within the cyberspace - including socialising with new people, building homes, and even starting a virtual family. Although such features which are closely associated with the idealistic social practices prevailing in society may not be realistically achievable in the actual lived experiences of certain users, it arguably serves the function as a liberating potential of game-based learning whereby individuals are not subjected to the social constraints they may be currently facing (e.g. discrimination). Regardless of their individual background, they are able to stealthily practice / learn about social expectations and roles from the digital persona they choose to adopt. Learning in this way becomes immersive and pleasurable, as users are not conscious of the fact that they might be learning in the process of gaming. The amount of autonomy and agency gained in the cyberspace through games allows learners to transcend the traditional repressive qualities of the education system, which could limit their social interactions and experiences.

However, I would like to contend that such ‘virtual world’ games may not be as liberating as it may seem. Although it provides an escapement from reality and encourages ‘stealth learning’, games could also possibly perpetuate existing constraints of traditional social structures. Using the same example of SIMS, a game in which users can design their own homes and engage in social networks within their own (digital) neighbourhood, the conditions to control their SIM character’s life were designed to mimic real-life conditions - such as the need to earn ‘coins’ to pay bills, the career ladders, and having responsibilities with children and relationships. The order and requirements of the real social world is thus extended to the cyberspace, whereby users’ gratification from the success of their SIM characters are still very much dependent on the traditional social structures we are all so familiar with. Besides SIMS, there are many other similar games which are also designed based on ‘real-life’ elements, such as MapleStory, Club penguin etc.

Hence, beyond the individual impacts that online games have on users, it is also necessary to think about how it plays a role in sustaining social structures and could be an extension of our existing social lives - since we often bring our ideals and desires into the digital world we seek to create.

[horoanne]

Blog Post 7 - Cultural Capital as Fluid & The Role of Media

According to Bourdieu, the three theoretical concepts - cultural field, cultural capital and the habitus - help us make sense of the relationship between people’s practices and the contexts in which those practices occur. He posits that cultural capital confers social status and power through the accumulation of both tangible and intangible materials (e.g. goods, practices, knowledge) that aligns with the social structure of a particular society. Our knowledge, and the way we understand the world, are in turn constructed through the habitus, which disposed us towards certain attitudes and beliefs of behaving because of the influence exerted by our cultural trajectories.

With this, Bourdieu argues that ‘gambling’ for capital in an effort to strive for upward social mobility is ‘doomed to fail’, as habitus will limit an individual from achieving success. For example, a lower-class migrant family may strive to get its children educated in order to transcend social class, but their mindset will ultimately prevent them from achieving success as they have the mindset that they are unsuitable for higher education. But is this really the case?

Although this is true to a certain extent as supported by the self-fulfilling prophecy and labelling theory, I do not completely agree. In a more positive light, meritocratic systems in countries like Singapore makes social mobility more fluid by providing people with the chance for upward social mobility not limited by their social position or background. However, it can also be argued that such opportunities are not equal since social positions and background still play a role in determining how access to education and resources are shaped - e.g. children from higher socioeconomic class may afford to attend additional tuition/enrichment classes that boost their academic results. Despite its limitations, meritocracy still offers a level playing field whereby more and more success, ‘rags to riches’ stories can be observed as compared to the past. Hence, even though the social environment of an individual may result in a more disadvantaged starting point, their chances of succeeding is definitely not ‘doomed to fail’ as well.

Furthermore, the advancement of media has arguably made the accumulation of cultural capital easier by shaping our tastes and consumption patterns in a particular cultural field. Through the wide range of materials circulated and consumed, people from all kinds of social backgrounds may internalise dispositions or develop tastes that extend beyond the schemata acquired through our immediate agents of socialisation and social networks (e.g. family). The capacity for transformation is thus facilitated with the increasing access to media materials - which provide resources for users to reconstruct their social self in a way that ‘fits in’ with the prevailing societal conditions. For example, the use of hashtags on social media platforms have reinforced the bandwagon effect that allows people to form their digital persona and express their ‘knowledge’ about a particular matter. Putting the issue of authenticity aside, it is interesting to witness how mass media can help to break down social barriers while and contribute to a ‘collective identity’ that may be advantageous to some.

[horoanne]

Blog Post 6 - The Undelivered Promise of The ‘Sharing Economy’ (Ho Roanne)

Ravenelle (2019) reveals that the ‘sharing’ economy did not deliver what it has promised - as can be seen in the actual lived experiences of the people involved in the gig economy. The sharing economy initially presented itself as a solution to social problems (e.g. inflexible work policies, lack of social connections, growing trend of inequality etc.). However, research has shown that not only has this form of non-standard employment exacerbated existing social issues, it has also created more risk than autonomy for workers.

I mainly agree with her that the idea of ‘sharing’ is a facade that paints a rosy picture of the revival of community spirit - without creating meaningful interactions in actuality. As a regular user Airbnb (whenever I got to travel), I often find myself picking up the keys to the apartment in a safebox, or equivalent, without having to meet the host in person. Although at times I do meet friendly hosts, the opportunity is rare and the social bonds forged do not extend beyond the period of stay (i.e. short-term and superficial). Furthermore, I recall an incident whereby an Airbnb host was reluctant to accept my booking request simply because i had ‘no profile picture’.  This reinforces the argument that the users of such ‘sharing’ apps may have no real desire for social interactions and not much different from any other business transactions - except for the fact that they may ‘choose’ their customers based on profile information displayed which potentially makes discrimination easier in the process.

However, I do acknowledge that not all experiences in the sharing economy are the same. There are also success stories out there as well. As a GrabHitch driver who engage in this platform just for the extra income, I notice that most customers would actually take the front seat which makes it easier to hold friendly conversations with them. Be that as it may, I still feel that the lived experiences of workers are still largely dependent on many other factors, such as the nature of their work (e.g. are they doing this merely as a side hustle or main source of income), which will in turn determine the amount of risk borne by them and whether their intention is purely economically motivated or socially-driven as well. The ‘profiles’ on such sharing app would also influence their experience and could perpetuate the inherent issue of systematic exclusion. Hence, the 'sharing' economy is more complex as it seems and needs to be examined more closely in order for policy-makers to intervene appropriately.

[horoanne]

Blog Post 5: The Participatory Culture and User-Generated Content (Ho Roanne)

Fuchs (2014) provides an alternative angle from Henry Jenkins’ (2009) optimistic view on participatory culture. While Jenkins’s concept of spreadable media focuses on viewing social media as a tool that empowers users engage in civic engagement and lowering barriers to make their demands heard, Fuchs highlights the importance of looking at the downsides of the internet as well. Criticising Jenkins’ assumptions of an automatic link between online fandom in poplar culture and political protest, he argues that cultural communities may not necessarily be political progressive - but could instead lead to online facism, facilitate extremities, and even raised concerns about inequality/exploitation. Hence, Fuchs’ work allows for a more nuanced approach to Jenkins’ culturalistic understanding of participation and opens up discussion for the concept of digital labour.

Having worked in a marketing firm as an intern before, I can definitely see how the attention economy on social media is benefiting corporate organisations and commercial brands. More than ever, user-generated content has been exposed to a vast audience (thanks to increased accessibility to the internet) which gives exploiters an opportunity to ‘take advantage’ of all the cognitive surplus and free publicity that users have to offer. Although I agree with Fuchs’s point that we should not overlook the issue of ownership (big companies like Google/FB benefiting disproportionately larger than individuals who are the ones generating them with content and data), I also feel that he undermines the value which users may be gaining from such content creation at the same time. Just like how we are ‘paying’ to use ‘free’ platforms with our data/content, users similarly ‘gain’ in other aspects (instead of direct monetary value) - such as the opportunity for self-promotion, gaining valuable networks and social capital, as well as many non-tangible benefits that improved our relations and communication with others.

Perhaps we’ve been brainwashed by the wonders of social media and socially-conditioned to think that the internet is essential to us. Undeniably, we also have to recognise its inherent exploitative nature and dangers. But as a digital native from Gen Z, I can’t help but notice the increasingly mutually-beneficial relationship between users and owners, consumers and producers, content creators and adopters. It makes me think about how digital labour and its concept of exploitation may undermine the agency that users excise. It could also be the reverse whereby in some instances consumers are the ones taking advantage of the affordances that participatory culture provides.

[horoanne]

Blog Post 4: Media Industries (Ho Roanne)

The article by Adorno and Horkheimer provides a critical view about culture industries, reflecting the commodification and homogenisation of culture today as a form of rational domination in a capitalist society (with Marxist underpinnings to it). Using the ‘lack of style’ in modern culture industries and the corporatization of media companies / cultural makers to illustrate the effects of economic coercion on a field that was previously separated from the market, Adorno and Horkheimer provoke us to think about how art and creativity have been reduced to mere objects that are subjected to logic of the market.

While I agree with how culture is increasingly being commodified, with price tags and values put on various types of cultural goods/services (and creativity tailored accordingly to suit the mass audience), I feel that Adorno and Horkheimer are too dismissive about describing how consumers are simply being passively controlled and manipulated by the market - in which culture industries are in turn dependent on. In my opinion, the increasing media literacy of the mass audience today has been undermined and underestimated in this reading. Besides the fact that not all cultural producers have economic affiliations or are incentivised to produce for money, the distinctions between ’consumers’ and ‘producers’ are also blurring. With the affordances of new media and the internet, consumers are now both producers and consumers. Exemplified in the case of ‘citizen journalism’, consumers (or the so-called ‘proletariats’ who do not own any means of production) also have the agency to collaboratively create content and influence public opinion. It is hard to ignore citizens who upload news/content with the intention of benefiting the public with their information and bringing about positive changes in society.

Hence, this goes to show that power relations are dynamic and not simply a one-direct flow from producers (those who own means of production in the capitalistic society) to consumers as Adorno and Horkheimer make it appear to be. It is definitely a more complex issue that could possibly evolve over time.

[horoanne]

Blog Post 3: Mobile Media

Mobile media is said to transcend the constraints of time and space, and disrupt the social logic of public spaces (Ito, Okabe & Anderson, 2017). What this means is that portable artefacts (inclusive of but not limited to smartphones) are increasingly changing the way we interact with physical spaces and people, leading to the “personalisation of urban places”. In Ito et. al.’s reading, three major types of ‘presence’ in the urban space were identified: cocooning, camping and footprinting.

Being an avid user of portable technological devices and consumer of media myself, I find each genre of presence highly relatable. Cocooning involves using devices and media to create a private territory within the confines of urban spaces. Evidently in our society today, it is a common sight to see people plugged into their earphones on public transport, and even while walking along the streets. This creates a ‘bubble’ around each individual and allows us to momentarily claim personal space, especially during transition from place to place. While I appreciate this affordance by portable device, I find it increasingly difficult to approach people upon seeing them ‘occupied’ by their devices. For example, when I see an acquaintance in school sitting alone and using her phone with earpiece on, I would be more hesitant to say hi because I am unsure if she wants to be ‘disturbed’. However, while mobile media may result in increased social fragmentation with people increasingly wanting to retreat into their own ‘bubble’, one can also argue that the portability of smartphones affords greater social interaction with its convenience and instantaneous communication function. With people increasingly occupied with their personal devices, are there truly public spaces left?

Hence, mobile media has definitely altered the way we interact with urban locations. In terms of camping, I observed that places such as cafes, lounges and (now) even hotels are increasingly designed in such a way that increases its desirability as a ‘camping’ location. The free wifi and power plugs are some examples of how places may be tailored to suit people’s mobile kits (which has become increasingly generic) - e.g. mobile phones, laptops, chargers are some key essentials. Conversely, people’s mobile kits have also shaped our decision to visit places (e.g. consider where has power plugs). Our social practices have shaped urban locations, and vice versa.

Furthermore, footprinting enables the activities of people to be tracked more than ever. With physical reward cards rendering obsolete, people now heavily rely on mobile applications to perform many daily activities, including sustaining their relationships with commercial establishments. In this process of compromising personal data and consumption patterns, many of us still choose to subscribe to email newsletters, download apps to gain/redeem points and agree to their privacy terms and conditions in order to engage with public spaces - which has become increasingly digitised. The question to ask ourselves would be: is it really a choice? In the case of China’s cities where most merchants have gone cashless and rely on the Alibaba platform for economic transactions and retail information, people are left with no other options but to conform to such a system.

To sum up, the more ‘mobile’ our lives are, the more our relationships with public spaces are changing. Mobile media has, and will continue, to shape our lives in many different aspects.

[horoanne]

Blog Post 2: Domestic Media

Spiegel (2015) raised many interesting points about TV’s relation to the spatial geographies of everyday life. This includes the changing role of TV across time and how it mediates our public/private spaces. During its early days, TV was a sign of prestige and symbol of the elites before it became a mass medium found almost in every home. This changing class status of the TV and development of it as a domestic device have consciously and unconsciously mediatised many aspects of living and influenced how we perceive  both the ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ world.

Growing up, the TV played a vital role in my childhood development. Unlike now whereby children in our society are largely occupied by ‘smaller screens’, TV was a major source of entertainment for my younger self. At that time, I consumed a lot of diverse content, ranging from both international cartoons to local dramas that my grandmother would diligently and routinely watch at a particular time. As a result, my daily routine (e.g. mealtimes, homework-time, and even nap-time) was very much structured according to the timing of my favourite TV programmes.

The content consumed, which was selectively censored due to gatekeeping and Singapore’s relatively conservative media culture, have contributed to the mediatisation of taste and consumption for me. For example, the toys featured in advertisements on kids’ channels had a significant effect on shaping what I liked and find desirable. (The ‘cool kids’ in school were the ones who possessed that particular toy). Besides, the constant portrayal of what is ‘bad’/‘degenerative’ (e.g. drugs) in shows such as crimewatch really played a role in instilling fear to shape my perceptions of what is considered doing the ‘right thing’ and subsequently prevent ‘deviant’ forms of behaviours.

Back then, TV was arguably a culture-machine for me. It was the medium where I learnt the appropriate civic values, ‘bad deeds’ to avoid and report, and lastly cultivating taste which influenced what I deemed as ‘socially desirable’. Now, more than ever, Spiegel’s idea about how the TV facilities the mediatisation of taste and consumption still stands as we see many familiar and new ways that media/technology have extended into our daily lives and habits.

However, on Spiegel’s point about media as a form of compensation for spatial inequality is what I find differing from my own personal experience. While this is largely true, there are also the other side to it. One incident that struck me from my personal experience would be how my friend was upset about having to ‘watch TV all day and do nothing at home’. To the more privileged, watching TV in the confinements of the domestic sphere could connote boredom and a poor leisure choice, whereas the TV set is still a large source of leisure and entertainment among marginalised groups - such as the one-room flat dwellers in Singapore (Teo, 2018). Such marginalised groups who are spatially constrained may have no choice but to stay home and watch the TV because they do not have the means to spend money outside. Hence, unlike the privileged in Singapore, the amount of time spent on the TV could indicate the level of prestige in the form of ‘having options’ in our local society. Interesting to ponder over this!

Reference: 

Teo You Yenn, This Is What Inequality Looks Like, Singapore: Ethos Books, 2018, 285 pp. ISBN: 9789811158049

[horoanne]

Blog Post 1: This Mediated Life

In The Social World as Communicative Construction, the authors present our social environment as having an ‘everyday reality’ of its own. This ‘reality’ that we have come to accept is socially constructed by human practices and their consequences, with technology and media playing a central role in this process.

The authors bring to attention the ‘mediation of everything’ (Livingstone, 2009), illustrating how communication, media and their infrastructures have increasingly altered our daily living/lifestyle and the way we accept institutional facts as reality itself. Not only does it facilitate the process of objectivation (Berger and Luckmann, 1966), it has also changed the way we interact and sustain relations – creating convenience but also complexity at the same time.

Growing up in this digital age, the claims made about this ‘mediated life’ in this reading were very relatable. With the high (sometimes even excessive) usage of social, I, among many others, have developed habits with regards to and around this medium. Unsurprisingly, it became a routine that I keep myself updated with all that is happening on social media every single day; see what my peers are up to, what they are advocating, what they are condemning etc. Besides social media and all that my smartphone has to offer, I also noticed my face-to-face interactions with other people included these online contents – which have become ‘common knowledge’, or what Couldry and Hepp would deem as ‘everyday reality’ among social groups. The things we see on media and people’s reactions to them have consciously and subconsciously shaped our perceptions/understandings of various issues, thereby blurring the distinction between face-to-face experiences and other experiences of the social world.

Especially during the Circuit Breaker period where we could not go outdoors to meet others face-to-face, many of us relied on the media and online platforms to read the news, see the ‘outside’ world and… beyond: we could even get a glimpse of intimate homes of people whom we may not even know, private conversations of others, and the ‘new normal’ constructed on social media. Such transparency would never have been possible without mediatisation - which not only altered the way in which we communicate but also influenced the way we view privacy/other issues. Definitely, there are also complexities that rises with such transparency which are worth reflecting about.