As Marshall pointed out, there are linkages between constant presence of digital technology and how we behave in the world. Although the example was the influence of movie on society, the analogy can be applied to current world where new technology, namely web 2.0, is radically changing the norms of communication, behavior in the digital and daily lives, and even socially accepted value system, especially in terms of social media networks.

Just like the casual chitchat between you and your neighbor become a piece of information about your neighborhood, the social media technology now enables the world to see the stream of your thoughts and others use them as their basis for knowledge and secondary experience for daily lives.  As Boyd pointed out, even a stream of mundane conversations and opinions can function as social grooming that allows network participants to grow their social knowledge of others.

People with similar interests can be connected easier than ever without the limitation of geographical location. Such new level of connectivity facilitates the formation of collectivity.  For example, as of September of 2011, one of online social networking sites, Facebook alone had over 800 million active worldwide users (Olivarex-Giles 2011), exceeding 2011 US populations of 312 million (US Census Bureau). Such massive user base creates a new domain, namely networked public according to Boyd. Just like human interaction, networked public are created by people with similar interest, purpose, backgrounds, and cause. Based on the infrastructure of a public or semi-public virtual profile given their selection of social media channel, users interact, view, and traverse with others.  As their mass and streams of conversation expand, social media channels will create more densely populated networked public, although it is undergoing unintended issues, such as a violation of virtual privacy (or, should I say the blurring boundaries between private and public virtual contents), ethical issues from advertising and minor’ use of social media networks, and the diluted concept of authenticity (since no one know about the original creator of virtual contents due to cycles of recreations and modifications). Nevertheless, the technology merely opened a new door for us because the new ideas sprung from the new technology can be only limited by our creativity.

References

Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.

Olivarex-Giles, N. (2011), “Facebook F8: Redesigning and hitting 800 million users, Los Angeles Times,” [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/facebook-f8-media-features.html]

Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

Stalder, F. (2006). The logic of networks. In Manuel Castells and the theory of the network society (pp. 167-198). Cambridge: Polity Press. [ch. 6]

US Census Bureau (2011). Population Clock. [www.census.gov/]

Marshall discusses new media cultures in terms of the technological apparatus. The technological apparatus “sets up a digital sensorium that ultimately operates in its normalcy as a loose ideology within the culture… The regularity of the use of the digital machines is that we have naturalized the expansive presence of the digital and the microchip in the way that we move through the world. The kinds of interaction that digital technology produces become second nature to our being and normalize ideal forms of interaction. Like the cinematic apparatus, the technological apparatus surrounds, mediates and becomes part of our identity and relationship to the world. The digital world produces us as technological subjects” (Marshall, 33).

It’s interesting to talk about this culture as one who is immersed in it, as one who is culturally constituted by a technological-apparatus society. In reading Marshall’s explanation of such a culture, I possess what Kenneth Burke would call a “trained incapacity” to understand what “normalcy” is and is not (Permanence and Change, 49). Our inherently ethnocentric cultures, particularly the new media culture in which we live, divides us from peoples that are not produced as technological subjects. This “digital divide” separates me from people like my grandparents much like I am separated by the traditions, daily routines, values, social practices, and Weltanschauung that foreign people maintain. My grandfather who is a 90-year old retired farmer—never owned a computer—once asked me why I had to use the internet for my job as an adjunct professor. After hearing my response, he made a face like he was swallowing vinegar.

The digital divide Marshall spoke of acknowledges the extent to which a new-media culture is separated by other cultures, but I wish Marshall would delve further into why such a divide is significant. One could look at North Korea as an example of seclusion from the rest of the world, a global divide that encompasses more than just a digital separation. The kind of divide, like self-exile, is important to note in a world that very much operates through things like trade exchanges and other forms of interactions with other countries. I don’t believe my grandfather or the countries that Marshall lists choose to be divided as such, but the divide can be economic (Marshall, 35).

As an American, I’ve had a great life. The values, beliefs, and culture that constitute my identity as an American are meaningful and valuable, but part of the respect I have for my American heritage is due to my own trained incapacity to see outside of my culture, to appreciate and value the heritage given to those who don’t share my culture. Thus, for cultures different from mine, can I objectively claim that such cultures need to submit to and adopt my own culture because it’s perhaps “more advanced,” “cutting edge,” or even “modern?” It reminds me of Tarzan, when he attempted to assimilate himself into the New World. If such a transition was successfully made, Phil Collins would have to rewrite his songs.

Marshall says, “Not all of the planet has access to these information flows and networks that have become second nature to many individuals. The technological apparatus thus must be seen as modalized around exclusion as much as access and inclusion” (35). Essentially, what I’m asking is, should such divides be bridged and why?

In my opinion, the most interesting readings this week came from A Networked Self. The introduction to the book discussed the differences between “random networks” and “scale free networks.” A random network assumes that nodes (individuals) randomly link to each other. This would imply that most nodes have the same number of connections with only a few having numerous connections and a few having none. On the other hand, scale free networks paint a different picture. These networks are represented by many small nodes coexisting “with a few very highly connected nodes, or hubs (Papacharissi, 2010).” Sure, nodes may have random encounters with other nodes, but their likelihood of connecting depends upon the number of connections the nodes already have and their fitness. Fitness was defined as “the ability to attract links after these random encounters (Papacharissi, 2010).” Since I am in the field of marketing, the idea of fitness and increasing fitness is very interesting to me.

Chapter 2 of A Networked Self also had many intriguing points. I was most interested in Boyd’s discussion of profiles within social network sites. He stated that, “Because of the inherent social – and often public or semi-public – nature of profiles, participants actively and consciously craft their profiles to be seen by others (Papacharissi, 2010).” Alexa already discussed this within her blog, but this idea of one’s self and how individuals express themselves within a social network is a research interest of mine. Do individuals express their actual self or ideal self in this context? Does the audience matter? For example, are individuals likely to express whom they would like to be instead of whom they really are when they are not likely to encounter audience members in the “real world?”

Chapter 3 of New Media Cultures discussed “new media” and how it has impacted the lives and culture of many people around the world. It is apparent that we do not just consume media, we interact with it, and we produce it. As we discussed in our last class, most phones have cameras on them that allow individuals to quickly capture a moment in time. This photo or video can then be shared with a myriad of individuals. This chapter also discussed the rise of a new work culture where technology allows individuals to stay connected to the job even when they are away from the office. However, the opposite is true as well. While on the job, individuals can use technology for personal reasons, such as, checking Facebook or playing online games. There appears to be a blurring of the line between work time and play time (Marshall, 2004).

Lastly, Stalder (2006) discussed Castells’s idea of networks and the theory behind it. Of particular interest to me was how networks coordinate themselves. Stadler (2006) states “they coordinate themselves on the basis of common protocols, values, and goals (process).” I also found Castells description of the roles that nodes play to be very interesting. Castells argues that a nodes importance depends on the level of its contribution. Valuable nodes contribute information to the network, and if a node fails to contribute, it will be dismissed from the network (Stalder, 2006). I would like to learn more about how nodes increase their value.

Marshall, P. D. (2004). New Media Cultures. London: Hodder Arnold.

 Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2010). A Networked Self:!Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York: Routledge.

 Stalder, F. (2006). The logic of networks. In Manuel Castells and the theory of the network society (pp. 167-198). Cambridge: Polity Press. [ch. 6]

 Stalder’s article on Castell’s work defining and exploring networks seem to mirror the introduction of A Networked Self. Both gave a biological picture of networks and how communication creates the network between nodes, the building blocks of networks. In the keynote to A Networked Self, Barabasi uses the example of Google to give us a better understanding of how the fitness of a node determines how likely a node is to develop relationships with other nodes. In Google’s case, as a fit node develops lots of connections to other nodes, it becomes easier and easier to gain more relationships, becoming nearly impossible for other nodes to catch up. I liked this example because it gave me a concrete example and led me to see the same example in other areas as well. In particular, it led me to think about the telecommunications industry and what I learned about it during a brief post-college employment with a wireless provider. There are two dominant wireless companies in America today, and probably about 5 major brand competitors. Because the top two companies can afford the top two spots on every cell tower, their signal strength is better than their competitors and this leads more and more consumers to contract with them because of that reputation.

I mentioned in my introduction that one of the aspects of social media that I would like to explore during this class is this sub-type of etiquette that has formed around our online interactions. I’ve also come to realize that while platforms like Facebook make me feel connected to old friends and acquaintances by giving me the impression that I know what is going on in their life because we have had some kind of conversational interaction, the reality is that the only contact I’ve had with them is voyeuristic. I’ve seen pictures of their children and I know they got a new job last year because of what I have seen in my news feed on Facebook, but we haven’t exchanged information directly to each other for years in some cases. I may have “liked” their most recent status update, or wished them a happy birthday, as prompted by Facebook, but the truth is those are just as much for the other people reading the “news feed” of our mutual friends as those interactions fill a social obligation. Boyd talks about these interactions in the second chapter of A Networked Self, “Comments are not simply a dialogue between two interlocutors, but a performance of social connections before a broader audience. I know I have been guilty of writing the obligatory birthday message almost on a daily basis, and I know that at least to some, this is a way of saying, “Look at what a good friend I am, I remembered your birthday!” I hope this topic is something we will explore more in the coming weeks.

Going back to our discussion from last class on defining new media, I was further affirmed by our readings this week that new media, in my recent interactions, is giving users the ability to broadcast their own message. I am more convinced than ever that, at least the way I use it in my own life, new media comes down to one button on my smartphone and computer, the “share” button. In chapter three of New Media Cultures, Marshall writes about McLuhan’s explanation of cool media as, “those that allowed for greater interaction, where the audience as participants completed the form and its meaning.” (pg.31) When I read this, it dawned on me that this could be a completely accurate academic description of both Twitter and Tumbler. Most of the tumblers that I have read or check with any regularity do not even have much original content. They are usually a short two to five second gif file from a show or movie and the author has captioned or titled the file with their own witty comment. They are using the new media outlet, and someone else’s art to send out their own message.

Several interesting topics and concepts were discussed in this week’s reading assignments. One of the major topics was the role of network(ing) in media. According to Manuel Castalls, “networks are becoming the preferred way or organizing in virtually all domains of social life” (Stalder 170). While I wouldn’t go so far as saying all, definitely a lot of social life is inspired by networks. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter definitely allow a person to contact and maintain ties with a large number of contacts through networks. While the network could be something as simple as a group of persons who attended the same high school/college or share a passion for the same sports team, these networks provide immediate access to a group of individuals with a common interest. While networking is certainly not new, technology has certainly expanded its capabilities, as well as the distance between members of a network.

Boyd went more in-depth about social networking and the impact that it may have, both now and in the years ahead. She described some of the features of social media sites, such as the profile, which is somewhat of your online introduction to the audience. Also, she talked about friends lists, which is where you develop your network to the people you are affiliated with. Even more importantly, she gave great insight on topics such as “invisible audiences” – meaning people who while are not the intended target of information that you post, certainly have access to it and can use it for their own personal entertainment, “searchability”, which is the ability to locate and track a person once they have registered themselves into the world of social media, and the fine line between what can be considered public and what can be considered private.

In Marshall’s book, we were given insight on the means that we are often introduced to new technology, and our reasons for being fascinated by new technology. Media outlets, such as newspaper articles and television shows have been designated to introduce us to new mediums of technology, and also how to adapt to technological advancements. One example of the new types of technology that one of these venues would highlight was the phenomenon of satellite radio. Although radio has obviously been around for years, and is free to its consumers (as long as you own a receiver), there are still those of us who choose to purchase satellite services. Due to the advancement of technology, a person is able to subscribe to a satellite station. These stations are often commercial-free, and offer an opportunity to listen to their preferred style of music, even down to a particular artist that they like. These new methods of technology feed into the idea that accessibility and the ability to filter the unwanted from the wanted fuels our passion for an ever-changing technology.

When I reached the end of this week’s readings, I felt a little dizzy contemplating the scope of “networks” as conceived by Manuel Castells and explained by Felix Stalder. I knew things were going to get funky when Stalder went off on a biological tangent, considering Fritjof Capra’s conception of “network society” as a sort of molecular structure that creates and renews itself. Capra’s “networks” both consume and void matter, which is an interesting way of attaching organic qualities to a seemingly inorganic entity. This idea of “networks” as living things that feed off of information provided by the good little “nodes” that connect the network is rather awesome, quite postmodern, and terrifying when considering the structures we currently have in place all over the physical world. Stalder makes it clear that hierarchies have had their day and are in a state of staggered crumbling. It would appear that the rigid, vertical, often bureaucratic structures of hierarchies simply cannot match the horizontally-styled web of Castell’s “network.”  In the minds of these guys, the financial system is already walking around on its own. What’s next?

In chapter 3 of Marshall’s book, he considers the impact of Internet communication upon the physical environments in which we live. That is, how we work, play, revolt and sometimes all three at once. From the Seattle protest of 1999 to work spaces that include games and beds, the focus of the chapter is on increased access to technology and how the new conditions created by such access impact where we are headed economically and how we are becoming producers of media as much as we are consuming it. Marshall is sure to name check all the known wizards of media theory: McLuhan and Baudrillard (both of whom he considers outdated – boo!), Donna Harraway (whose cyborg theories are highly relevant) and the dynamic duo of Deleuze and Guattari with their “rhizomatic” theory, seemingly a close relative of Castell’s “network.”

As for the readings in A Networked Self, the considerations in the two pieces are more specific and slightly more up to date with what’s currently happening. Barabasi’s keynote speech is interesting in that he attempts to draw a distinction between the “Internet” and the “Web” by taking into account the physicality of the apparatuses that keep everything up and running as opposed to the more ephemeral phenomenon of communication within the “web.” The point I really took away from Barabasi relates to his contemplation of “strong links” and “weak links” within the network and how communities correspond to strong links while the important, cool, hip, up-to-date information between these communities is spread by way of the weak links.

Danah Boyd’s consideration of “publics” is a dissection of sorts, using divisions within divisions. Her focus is specifically leveled at Facebook. The way she breaks down the public presentation of “profiles” and “comments” within the Facebook format reveals a calculated, even though it may seem unintentional, thought process on the part of the website’s users as they consider who will be seeing their presentation of “self” and their relationships to others.

The login page should be working now, so you should be able to post to the blog.

My name is Hyeong-Gyu Choi (It’s pronounced as “He-young-Giu-Cho-e”). I am originally from South Korea, and I have been around in the US for some times. Given the complexity of pronouncing my full name, I go by my last name, Choi.

Before I came to Memphis, I had lived in Miami FL for some time while I learned the hard lesson that Miami was pretty much for tourists only. Later, I moved to the state of Ohio and got my Bachelor degree from the Ohio State University and Master degree from the Cleveland State University.

I married a beautiful violinist plus violist who was gracious enough to teach me that classic music could be truly enjoyable. Hanging around with a musician lends me a valuable life lesson. Musicians often spend months or even over a year to learn one piece of music, and they still say that they require study deeper to understand the piece. I have seen my wife practicing one musical passage lasts few seconds and trying to express the music in countless ways. Compared to her, I have not done anything in my life by doing my BEST and achieving what I am good at.

Also, while I am having more fun to hang around with my wife, I am living with two awesome dogs. Who knew that raising two puppies took that much of works and dedications? I am still learning life lessons about how sacred any living and breathing life.

Formerly a news+radio junkie and a fan of spy/sci-fi/detective novels, I am a scholar wannabe now, meaning that I am now struggling to keep up with reading and I would be happy as a chipmunk if I go through a week reading. Given my profound interest in consumer behavior, my research interest is computer-mediated digital communication in the form of social media. As general means of communication technology evolves, I believe that all the good old knowledge of psychology, communication, sociology, and even sense of humour and sharp tongue of Shakespeer will see another bright day in the context of social media.

Overall, I am a scholar wannabe, a cultural lost child who is still stuck at an awkward cultural crisis between South Korean and America, a dreamer who is still searching to find my life calling.