Information and the network sociaty

Manuel Castells , in Informationalism, networks and network society: a Theroretical blueprint, talks about the design of network, and speaks of how network is something all living things have in common. As he states: ‘Networks constitute the fundamental pattern of life, all kinds of life’.

I do agree with this statement, however Castells argues that this is for prosperity. In this statement I do not disagree, although I believe prosperity is a byproduct of what the real factor for network is. I believe that the real factor that all living life has some form of network, is for the reason that all life seeks companionship. Humans being perhaps the most social life form on this planet have reached a overcome nature to achieve that companionship. In the quest for this companionship, to be able to reach your hand across the oceans and mountains have brought us to an amazing journey of socio-evolution.

As Castells speaks of as well, we are in the middle of an development of communication technologies, and the expand of network we have been capable of creating around us, has brought us to a level of optimizing our network to the extent that all communication and sharing of information is almost instantaneous.
However he concludes with the notion that all the technologies that we have surrounded our self with, are as good as we are to use it. He mentions that a computer in a class room is as good as the teacher is to teach the school kids to how to us it, or how willing the kids are to learn how to use it.

He concludes with that we are not in the information or knowledge society, he bases this in that knowledge and information has always been a necessary foundation of efficiency and influence.

New Media Worlds? Challenges for Convergence

Nightingale has approached traditional media platforms (TV, magazines) and the challenges that are ahead. She introduces the concept of convergence, which she has explored throughout the article.

Convergence can be defined as a n act of moving towards homogeny or amalgamation, however here it is understood “as an ongoing process or series of intersections between different media systems, not a fixed relationship” (Jenkins, 2006). This means that multiple media platforms can exist contemporaneous, although the content can “flow fluidly across them” (Jenkins, 2006).

The disintermediation of the newspaper industry is a great example of challenges that traditional media faces and has to face in the future. Newspaper industry income related to classified advertisement was directly under attack by online competitors, newspaper industry responded by expanding and reconstructing its online services and stressing on its broader information services.

What the newspaper industry has and is doing is a trend which Nightingale refers to as ‘interntisation’ of the traditional media. She also mentions other examples of ‘internetisation’ of traditional media. ‘Big Brother’ is another ‘internetisation’ of traditional media, in ‘Big Brother’ Norway could the audience go online and watch live feed from selected rooms inside ‘Big Brother’ house, or pay a small fee to see all rooms. Nightingale points out that the cost related to this transition has been passed on to the audience by the traditional media with these fees.

Nightingale talks about the difficulties that the traditional media is facing in approaching the new audience formation of the Internet. The way they are reinvent their activities so they can compete for the Internet audience. Furthermore, Nightingale states that the Internet has also made it difficult for traditional media to protect their contents rights, with the emergence of peer-to-peer file sharing. However she reveals that the severe commercialization of the Internet has increase the characteristic differences between professional and user generated content, and according to Nightingale this will increase the gap between information rich and information poor content.

I have to disagree with Jenkins, I do not believe that convergence here is going to be “an ongoing process or series of intersections between different media systems, not a fixed relationship”. I believe that we are already witnessing the unification of platforms and platform appliances. The mobile phones today have been transformed into pocket PC’s with WiFi capabilities, the 3G technology has made it possible to stream TV or download movies directly to you mobile phone. These technological advances will unify the current platforms, but it will also help new platforms appear.

Mobile media and space

Vølker has taken a closer look at two mobile media applications, Semapedia and Socialight, and how they have contributed to bring the digital and the real world together. Semapedia is an application that is implemented on a mobile media, like a cell-phone.

Semapedia works in a way that allows users to print out a barcode which represents a URL address and attach this barcode to any physical object, this barcode (or URL) is linked to digitally stored information on Wikipedia that interconnects the object to its digital information on Wikipedia.

Socialight works in a similar manner, however with Socialight the digital information can be audio, text or picture (or all of the above) and its purpose is not only to connect information to places, but to interconnect people to each other through information space linked to physical coordinates.

Vølker then takes a closer look at how these types of applications can be categorized, do mobile media with these capabilities exist in the Digital space, Virtual space, Supplementing place or Social space?
She argues that these applications on non-wired mobile medias have made the Digital space and Real Space (reality or ‘Meatspace’) overlap in existence. Furthermore by using Lefebvre’s definition of Social space, she points out that it can be a suitable concept to describe wireless mobile media as well because they hold the capability of take place almost anywhere in relation to physical places due to their mobility. Additionally, mobile medias that are connected to a network without the limitations of cable connection also falls under de Certeau’s definition of Virtual space, ‘composed of intersection of mobile elements’ while staying in the same real place.

I have to agree with Vølker that wireless mobile medias do alter the way we grasp space and with the help of Socialight, the concept of time comes into question as well. The message sent is not received before you find yourself at those physical coordinates. Does this stop making time linear? I believe that media, by ‘doubling of space’ and breaking time barriers, has changed our perception of time and space.

The Doubling of Place

Shaun Moores has used Paddy Scannell’s perception that broadcasting media (television and radio) create the sense of ‘double’ reality and projected it on to the Internet and telephone as well. To illustrate this, Moores introduces three accounts of different electronic medium usage to demonstrate the sensation of ‘doubling of place’

The first case is a public event, the funeral of Princess Diana, where a family interrupts their dailiness and their daily routine to ‘take part in’ Princess Diana’s funeral and to ‘show respect’. The husband closes his business for the day and the family spends the morning and early afternoon in front of the television in their breakfast room to grieve the loss of a person they did not ‘know’ personally. Moores uses this sense of ‘participation’ through the television broadcast to illustrate the creation of ‘doubling of place’, where all adult members of the family to some degree acted as if they were ‘present’ at the funeral.

The second case is the usage of Internet forums or ‘mud’ (a ‘multi-user domain’ or more commonly known as a chat room). Lori Kendall, an ethnographer, has investigated participation in a chat room which she refers to as BlueSky. Moores draws parallel between Kendall’s behavior and the habits she has when utilizing the forum and the analysis of television culture. Furthermore Moores observes that there are no boundaries when creating an alias to explore the forums as someone else and how these online identities are affected by the way the ‘real life’ person’s self perception and psychological state is. By leaving your ‘physical’ self behind and engaging others in an alternative reality gives the impression of existing in two places simultaneously.

The last case is one we can all relate to, it is a story told by sociologist Emanuel Schegloff about a woman talking to her boyfriend in a train carriage on a mobile phone. She speaks to her boyfriend about a crisis in a clear and loud voice, and all the other passengers give her the privacy by pretending not to hear her. During this conversation her eyes meet a fellow passenger and this distresses her. Moores describes this, as if the ‘bubble realm’ that was created around her by the mobile phone bursts and the two spaces clash.

Conclusively, although Moores makes strong arguments with support from excellent references, due to the fact that the cases represented were isolated incidents, I believe I disagree with Moores theories. Regarding the first case, I don’t think that the family who watched Princess Diana’s funeral did so with the primary intention to try and ‘project’ themselves there. Alternatively, the family may have been looking for comfort and compassion from others and felt that they may be able to do so by watching the funeral’s broadcast. In the second case, it is not outside human nature to pretend to be someone else by using their imagination. As long as culture has existed, people have always projected an imaginary avatar of themselves through books, games, storytelling or other sources of imagination. Therefore, I cannot agree with Moores that this is a new phenomenon which was only created by online forums. Finally, in relation to the last case, I found it difficult to agree with Moores theory that the woman on the train was only having a loud conversation with her boyfriend on her mobile because she was in a ‘bubble realm’ which made her believe that she was alone on the train. I don’t think it is realistic to rule out the possibility that it could just be in the woman’s nature to speak loudly in public on her mobile and have little regard for her own privacy. Moreover, I doubt if her boyfriend was physically there on the train with her, thereby eliminating the ‘bubble realm’, she would choose to speak any softer than if she was speaking to him on the phone.