#networked individualism

[comunisfera]

meritocracia y neoliberalismo en los algoritmos de las plataformas sociales Marwick 2013

For Marwick, the technological is the personal and the personal is the political, meaning that readers of her treatise must be prepared to translate into English the cultish, inelegant vocabulary of contemporary critical theory: “governmentality,”  “discursive,”  “definitional,”   “instantiation” and so on. The sentences formed from these words are far from catchy and stand in stark contrast to the punchy brevity of social-media-era prose. This fundamental clash of sensibilities is felt throughout the book. Setting aside the content of Marwick’s arguments about the commercialization of the self in the age of Pinterest and LinkedIn, it’s hardly surprising that a prolix scholar should look askance at a culture that promotes extreme linguistic compression. Try reducing this thought to 140 characters: “But in technologies like Twitter, which can be used for all types of self-presentation, having a good reputation, and being trustworthy and authentic, play such an important role in self-branding theory that Web 2.0 aficionados use it to construct a single constructed identity leveraged across multiple media types.”

Marwick 2013

https://books.google.es/books?id=AHfiCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT35&ots=3-oFm7lcIm&dq=technologies%20of%20participatory%20culture%20stem%20from%20meritocratic&hl=es&pg=PT35#v=onepage&q&f=false

[romeofoxtrotblog-blog]

‘I share therefore I am’

Photograph by Rohan Furnell

Recently while taking a break during rehearsals, I stood slouched, discreetly up in the far corner of the stage. My body draped back over a dismantled piece of set with my legs casually planted down and out to either side of me. A most perfect and typical moment in my day as I observed the company’s rehearsal continue on in front of me. Only a few years ago, my closest attention and concentration would have been fully invested in the flutter of activity playing out on the other side of the stage. However, on this day a fragment of awareness had splintered off and was surveying this moment, distracted by a noticeably casual and peripheral resolve. This was, I began to consider enthusiastically, an ideal opportunity to take a photo for Instagram.

Here in the back of the rehearsal studio I, like danah boyd (2012, p. 71), found myself ‘part of the cohort who is always-on’ and dynamically connected as a result of new digital technologies. One node in the midst of a digitally networked collectiveness that seemed to offer both a sense of community and involvement in society that reflects Tönnies’ ideas of instinctive and goal oriented will (Siapera 2012, p. 193). Through the images and videos I publish onto social media I document, curate and project a perception of experience and self. This ‘bringing of people and information into context’ as boyd (2012, p. 73) suggests captures an understanding of my own ‘digitally enhanced’ experience.

However Turkle’s (TED-Ed 2013) proposition of ‘I share therefore I am’ underlines the potential stumbling blocks of the increasing attachments to digital media and its potential to influence my very definitions of self. Interactions across the perpetually broadening horizons of the digital universe are irrefutably shaping the processes through which we construct knowledge, understand social orientation, perceive our environment and most critically form our identity (Turkle 1999, p. 643). As Turkle concludes the difficulty for us within this rapidly expanding network of virtual communities is that ‘if we don’t have connection we don’t feel like ourselves. We almost don’t feel ourselves’ (TED-Ed 2013).

Considering my own digital fluency from more ‘interactionist’ perspectives highlights how the expressive capabilities of social media are being continuously ‘negotiated’ beyond that considered by Tönnies (Papacharissi 2009, 216). More precisely these technologies are both ‘socially shaped and socially shaping’ (Papacharissi 2009, 216). The notions of digital citizenship that Wellman proposes are not ‘a matter of perceiving an ideal form of community’, but rather illustrative of ‘understanding its dynamic nature and its historical embeddedness’ (Siapera 2012, p. 197).

Appreciative of the potential for contributors and audiences to produce and tailor their engagement with social media through dynamic interaction across a network of digital platforms; I believe the socially constructed and pluralistic nature of the current digital landscape to be especially inviting. Seduced by a ‘wanting to be with people, but also elsewhere, connected to all the different places I want to be… to customise my life and have control over where I put my attention’  (TED-Ed 2013). Yet I am also concerned about the breakdown in the quality of human experience as a result of the distraction and conditioning of digital engagement. I wonder what is being lost in the continuing substitution of the authentically analogue for the digitally evocative?

References:

Boyd, D 2012, Participating in the Always On Lifestyle, in Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

Papacharissi, Z 2009, ‘The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld’, New Media & Society, vol. 11, no. 1-2, pp. 199-220.  

Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 1 December 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

Turkle, S 1999, ‘Looking toward cyberspace: Beyond grounded sociology’, Contemporary Sociology, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 643-648.

[yesdontyouknowit]

The Machines that Made Us

 Whenever you leave the house you probably check three things, keys, wallet, and phone. In my teens and early 20s it was keys and wallet, and it may not be long before it is only phone. In 2015, 89% of the Australian population are members of digital communities on social media (SocialMediaNews.com.au, 2014). The Web 2.0 has created an amazing way for people to communicate, providing great benefits but also some not so great consequences. Together we are going to explore one of the main ways many people communicate and the way it is shaping society.   

Social media is not only changing how we communicate, but also the way we identify as individuals. This reflexive modernity, the way we choose, construct, interpret and negotiate our identities, has given individuals more control over how society perceives them. While this is a great freedom and allowed similar people to connect with each other and in some cases make money, it has also been a cage for others (Wilken, McCosker, 2014). Click here to read an article about, Essena O’Neill, a twitter sensation that felt trapped by her user identity (News.com.au, 2015).

The way we interact has also changed in a converged media environment. What were once separate industries and devices, such as TV, Internet, computer, CD player, DVD player, radio, and phone, can now be found on a single device. This technology not only allows people to find each other on line but in person as well, with the use location tracking software. This can create security issues with people over sharing their personal information, but it can also assist authorities with investigations (Siapera, 2012).

 Digital communities are creating a new culture not only through the mixing of cultures online but in the way we socialize offline. Sherry Turkle an expert in the field, coins this as ‘alone together’. This is when people are on their phones rather than interacting with the people around them. Social media and mobile devices are making people more concerned about capturing and sharing moments rather than fully participating (Turkle, 2012). Our mobile devices are also making us always accessible and on, with the option of being connected constantly at our fingertips (Boyd, 2012). These affordances were never imagined when the Internet was launched in 1969 or when the first mobile phone calls were made in 1973 (Interaction-Design.org, 2011).

 It would be easy to assume that social media is creating freedom of communication. It is creating awareness of important issues and giving people, normally without access to quality education a sense of belonging. Click here to read a blog article about why the Internet is good (González, G 2014). But the truth is, these are not freedoms. These platforms are hosting sites controlled by people with objectives, political views, cultural expectations and laws by which they are run. Many people may not think that censorship and manipulated rankings is happening until their post gets removed, justly or unjustly (Gillespie, 2010). These decisions are shaping the views of our society, with the extent of censorship in Australia still unknown (Reporters without Borders, 2012). The question is, who is making these decisions and to what end?

 So what does this mean for digital communities? The truth is that they are creating an increasingly artificial society. In some areas it is giving power to the people’s voices but at the same time controlling our thoughts on how to think and feel about situations. While we are more connected then ever, we are also lonelier. We live in a capitalist society and the advancements of technologies and the ability of people in power to control the way we use them is only going to grow.

References Boyd, D 2012, Participating in the Always On Lifestyle, in Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp 71-76.

 Gillespie, T 2010, 'The politics of platforms', New Media & Society, vol. 12, no. 3, Sage.

 González, G 2014, ‘A million reasons why the internet is good for you’, The Big Think, viewed 21 May 2015, < http://blogthinkbig.com/a-million-reasons-why-the-internet-is-good-for-you/>.

 Interaction-Design.org 2011, Affordances (Don Norman, 1994), 15 February, viewed 22 September 2015, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Zb_5VxuM>.

 News.com.au, 2015, ‘Queensland ‘Instagram celebrity’ turns on the social media platform that made her famous’, news.com.au, viewed 21 May 2015, <http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/face-body/queensland-instagram-celebrity-turns-on-the-social-media-platform-that-made-her-famous/news-story/de6427c86c3a1233f97afcd63feec5da>

 Reporters without Borders, 2012, 'Australia', viewed 21 May 2015, <http://en.rsf.org/australia-australia-12-03-2012,42080.html>.

 Siapera, E 2012, ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, Sage, London, pp 191-208.

 SocialMediaNews.com.au, 2014, Social media statistics, viewed 26 August 2014, <http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics/>.

 Turkle, S 2012, 'Connected, but alone?' TED: Ideas worth spreading, Feburary, viewed 4 December 2014, <http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html>.

 Wavelength Films Ltd 2008, ‘The machine that made us’, 1 December 2010, viewed 20 November 2015, <https://commons.swinburne.edu.au/items/afe99e9e-99ae-4611-9bbd-d4eaa481e05e/1/>

 Wilken, R & McCosker, A 2014, 'Social Selves', in Cunningham & Turnbull (eds), The Media & Communications in Australia, Allen and Unwin pp. 291-295.

[adigitalcitizen]

Networked: The New Social Operating System

(Pew Research Center 2012) 

[adigitalcitizen]

Blog #1: Digital Communities, an introduction.

Technology redefines human connection

History shows that as societies have acquired new information, in particular technology, these technologies have lead to sociocultural revolution - a process of change in the ways in which society functions (Macionis & Plummer 2012, p. 107).

(The Mely File 2015)

Sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855- 1936) proposed that social groups only exist because people want to be associated with others. Tönnies observed a significant shift in sociality as a result of the industrial revolution, with people moving away from Gemeinschaft (community), where social connections were organically formed, to the purposeful social connections of Gesellschaft (society), in which people began associating with others in order to achieve certain goals (Siapera 2012, p. 193).

With the emergence of the information revolution, a number of theories have been put forward to decipher its impact on sociality. Sociologist Bruce Wellman suggested that sociality could be better understood in the terms of networks.  Within networks, people (or nodes) are connected to others in a variety of ways (ties) where they exchange unique content (flows). Ties can vary in strength, with weak ties representing connections to acquaintances rather than those of close social relationship (Siapera 2012, p. 197).

Mobile devices and the rise of Networked Individualism

Did you know that just over a year ago, it was declared that there were more mobile devices in the world then people?

At the time, it was estimated that 7.22 billion of these devices could be found in all corners of the world regardless of socio-economic standing (Boren, 2014). According to the GSMA’s real-time tracker, in just over a year that number now exceeds 7.58 billon and counting (GSMA Intelligence 2015).

(Mobile devices 2011)

Mobile devices like smartphones and tablets have become essential to the way people go about their daily lives. With most devices these days having the ability to connect to the Internet, many have become reliant on them not only to complete most of their daily tasks but to also virtually connect and communicate with whomever they desire irrespective of time or geographical location.

The combination of mobile connectivity, along with Internet broadband and social networking  - the three key transformations to come out of the information revolution, have lead to the rise of a new social networked operating system known as networked individualism (Rainie & Wellman, 2012, p. 11). Networked individualism allows people to function more as connected individuals rather then as implanted group members. Individuals now have the opportunity to meet their social, emotional, and economic needs beyond that of local groups, connecting through wide outreaching networks of diverse acquaintances online (Rainie & Wellman, 2012, p. 11-12).

(Social media illustration 2014)

Networked individualism is expanding at a rapid rate due to the affordance of social media. The term social media refers to a collection of Internet-based applications or platforms that enables anyone with a computer or mobile device to access, create and exchange information, collaborate with others, and build relationships (Jue et al., cited in Murthy 2013, p. 7-8, Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, p. 61). These platforms allow their users to connect to other users by permitting access to create personal or semi-personal information profiles and communication tools within the site. Through these sties a network of relationships can be built based on a variety of common interests (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, p. 63). For example, as a social networking platform Facebook allows its users to create a homophily of networks, or tie based on similarities (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook 2001, p. 415).

With great advancement comes potential lose

As seen with every sociocultural revolution to date, mixed in with the excitement of gain, there has also been a degree of concern as to what society may lose along the way.

In her TED talk ‘Connected but alone’ Shelly Turkle (TED 2013) suggests that as society lets new technology redefine human connection, it also has the potential to take it’s members to places they do not want to go by changing not only how people do, but also who they are. That by choosing networked individualism as a means of sociality, people are losing the social capital to associate with others away from these devices and the virtual world they connect to (Siapera 2012, p. 195). Thus resulting in a society that is learning to be alone together (TED 2013).

(Geiger, A 2015)

Only time will tell the full impact of networked individualism and the consequences of this new virtual world.

Until then, these digital communities are being embraced and explored… creating history.

Reference List:

Boren, Z. D 2014, There are officially more mobile devices then people in the world, The Independent, UK, viewed 19 November 2015, <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-officially-more-mobile-devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html>.

GSMA Intelligence 2015, Definitive data and analysis for the mobile industry, viewed 20th November 2015, <https://gsmaintelligence.com/>.

Kaplan, A. M & Haenlein, M 2010, Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media, Business Horizons, vol. 53, pp. 59 – 68.

Macionis J & Plummer, K 2012, Sociology: a global introduction, 5th edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, Harlow.

McPherson, M, Smith-Lovin, L & Cook, J. M 2001, Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, pp. 415-444.

Murthy, D 2013, Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age, Wiley, EBL ebook library.

Rainie, H, & Wellman, B 2012, Networked : The New Social Operating System, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 19 November 2015.

Siapera, E 2012, ’Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, pp 191-208.

TED-Ed 2013, Connected, but alone?- Sherry Turkle, 19 April, viewed 15 November 2015, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv0g8TsnA6c>.

Images:

Geiger, A 2015, SUR-FAKE, photograph, viewed 20 November 2015, <http://antoinegeiger.com/filter/photo/SUR-FAKE>.

Mobile devices 2011, How to redesign 1, photograph, iNews Design, viewed 20 November 2015, <https://inewsdesign.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/fotolia_71032320_subscription_xxl.jpg>.

The Mely File 2015, modern society, photograph, viewed 20 november 2015, <https://plus.google.com/109412435995758754621/videos?pid=6102382680096825666&oid=109412435995758754621 (Pew Research Center 2012)>.

Wisdom Times n.d., image, viewed 20 November 2014, <http://www.gopixpic.com/600/social-networking-advantages-and-disadvantages-of/http:||www*wisdomtimes*com|wp-content|uploads|2013|01|Social-Networking*jpg/>.)

[jacksonjonesuniverse]

#1. Networked Individualism

In 2014 a social media campaign was developed in the United States to raise money for those living with motor neurone disease (MND). The campaign required participants, like myself, to fill a bucket with water and ice, tip it over their heads and then challenge three other people (which was done predominantly via social media) to take the Ice Bucket Challenge within 48 hours. If nominees didn't take the challenge in this time they were to make a donation to an MND charity (of course those taking the challenge were also welcome to donate). The initiative raised over $2,500,000 for MND research in Australia alone (MND Australia 2014). This accomplishment may not have been possible without the existence of networked individualism.

Image 1: Nelu Handa at work at Ezra’s Pound Café, Toronto, May 2009 (Rainie & Wellman 2012, p. 105)

Networked individualism is 'me' centred. The individual no longer relies on physical social groups, organisations or institutions to approve and disperse a message. They are empowered to communicate selectively (Frizzo-Barker & Chow-White 2012). With the aid of online communication they are no longer confined to small, densely knit groups such as their family, work unit, neighborhood, or social group, but instead have access to a multitude of near and far-reaching online networks (Rainie & Wellman 2012). By accessing people in these vast networks people can tap into communities that may have been otherwise unavailable (or unknown) to them.

Waite (2013) maintains that while it is human nature to develop social bonds with others in our communities, the way in which we do that has evolved. In addition to this evolution, our experience of community has also changed. Where once a request for donations, for instance, may have been confined to a local organisation, workplace or local event, global social networks have broken these confines. Where a small local community may be restricted by local norms and beliefs, global social networks offer a wide range of forums where networked individuals can find an audience for their cause.

As mobile phones and internet allow participants to act more independently, individuals are moving (or have already moved) away from a focus on physical communities in favour of online interest-based communities. With the onset of networked individualism came choice and greater opportunities to learn, to grow and to be a part of the ever-expanding array of global communities. But with that power comes the encumbrance of maintaining these newfound loosely-knit networks (Rainie & Wellman 2012).

References

Frizzo-Barker, J & Chow-White, P 2012, '"There's an App for That" Mediating mobile moms and connected careerists through smartphones and networked individualism', Feminist Media Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 580-589.

MND Australia, 2014, 'MND Australia - Ice Bucket Challenge', accessed November 23, 2014, from <http://www.mndaust.asn.au/Get-involved/Ice-Bucket-Challenge.aspx>.

Rainie, H & Wellman, B 2012, Networked, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Waite, C 2013, The digital evolution of an American identity, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York.

Images

Rainie, H & Wellman, B 2012, Networked, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

[wildmedia]

Communities are dead, long live Networked Individuals

"People are not hooked on gadgets—they are hooked on each other. But things are different now. In incorporating the internet and mobile phones into their lives, people have changed the ways they interact with each other. They have become increasingly networked as individuals, rather than embedded in groups. In the world of networked individuals, it is the person who is the focus: more than the family, the work unit, the neighborhood, and the social group."