thinking is the new black

I took some time out from writing last week to run a research workshop with the Brighton team at iCrossing UK and then attended and presented at Transforming Audiences 2.

It is great to see the commercial world taking their research standards so seriously and the experience for me was having the best, most engaged seminar group ever, who responded to questions and discussion really thoughtfully. It’s very refreshing and to their credit that the team want to take the time to get beyond the surface of notions such as culture, community, tribe etc. that get used in quite a casual way in the industry sometimes, but not with these guys. It gives me heart that they’re are genuinely interested in the intellectual origins of such ideas and to use the terms in an appropriate way. As a result we spent a bit of time discussing culture as something we do, material culture and the idea and limitations of subculture. Also taking time to consider the value of the work of people like Foucault and Bourdieu, discourse, taste, agency online and power with a big P. Kudos guys!

so, Transforming Audiences 2

The pre-conference day at Transforming Audiences 2 on the presentation of the self in digital life was perhaps the most stimulating bit for me. I left at the end of the day having met some lovely new peeps engaged in research from all over the world: China, Canada, Australia and with pages of notes plus my brain on overdrive full of thoughts and ideas, which is the sure sign of a good conference.

There’s an excellent over view of the conf here from Britta ( also fyi Mark, David, Caro & co there are nice clean definitions of ontology epistemology etc..in a earlier post.)

There were some cracking presentations and it is clear there is great research being done by Ranjana Das and Sonia Livingstone on facebook at L.S.E. In particular I really liked Mia Lovenhein’s from the University of Oslo talk on blogs self representation and gender.

I asked a question during the discussion on what it means to be ‘social’ e.g is logging on and looking at a news feed the same as blogging? Well obviously not..and this troubles me that a lot of what is talked about as social media and participation is not what I would call social. The idea of needing to define ‘participation’ was also raised during the closing session and final panel by others.
For me the technology and the institutional dimension of digital needs to be addressed more explicitly by research. Not to go all techno-determinsim but in my view there needs to be more consideration of how the technology both enables and limits – one might say curates even? Also there was no mention of the spectre of Google and the idea that users only to varying degrees understand their networks, how search engine optimization and digital traces.

In the days when we all used film we knew to a certain extent who and where we presented representations of ourselves, in a picture frame in the home, in a photo album, in a corporate brochure, in a gallery etc So to a certain extent we knew who our audience was and if we were not in total control of the representation we had some comprehension of the institution that was and the power relations that involved. I could go on and on here, so many thoughts…

I came across tweetminster a couple of days ago, an idea inspired by?tweet congress?and MP Tom Watson?and?Alberto Nardelli.

Follow and Tweet MPs and Parliamentary Candidates, and use the power of Twitter to track UK politics, make your voice heard and conversations more open. You can take a back seat… or you can tweet.

I must say I really like the concept, despite it being a little utopian. A couple of weeks ago I facilitated a 2 hour seminar with 1styear students on Habermas and the concept of the public sphere, and the media. It was very interesting to hear students views on where they feel social media sits with political engagement. The message from the students was “I don’t understand politics”. Whereas I think tweetminster is a hopeful and positive idea, I wonder who it’s audience is at the moment? I fear it may be engaging the already engaged and wonder how it will tackle the disconnect between those it should be targeting and technological adoption rates. It raises all sorts of interesting questions about digital divides, technology and social inclusion.

I also came across?politics and the city?a website that aims to make politics stylish, founded by C4 presenter June Sarpong.

The site places political issues along side more light entertainment news, fashion, lifestyle, and celebrity gossip in order to try and capture it’s audience, young women. The site looks lovely, swish and sleek – but I struggled to find spaces of actual engagement.

The web is social. Hmmm, well no, because the web is neither subject nor object.

Whilst doing some re-drafting last week I returned to a favourite source of inspiration Lury’s Brands: Logos of the global economy. There is a quote from Bruno Latour on p149 which has been rattling around in my head all week, and I haven’t been able to shake it from my thoughts. I saw him once in the queue for coffee at the British Sociological Association annual meeting and rather embarrassingly was completely star struck. I seem to remember being almost paralyzed on the spot and texted my then partner ” jst sn Bruno Latour. OMG” . There is an interesting irony to this as the ex had absolutely no idea nor wish to know who Latour is. That I’d been meters away from IMHO one of the greatest living philosophers and sociologist was lost. However, later that year at a post-grad conference,I relayed the story to a PhD student, and he clutched chest and shrieked “be still my beating heart – you did not stand next to Bruno Latour SHUT UP!” I was satisfied.

Bruno Latour

Peter Sellers

I just want to add quickly that Latour was wearing a rain mac at the BSA, and what with looking a tiny bit like Peter Sellers and being?fronch and all.. well there was noone aound to make Inspector Cluseo jokeys with, quelle domage.

So, back to the point, the quote

“For the thing we are looking at is not a human thing, nor is it an inhuman thing. It offers, rather a continuous passage, a commerce, an interchange, between what humans inscribe in it and what it prescribes to humans [...] What should it be called neither object nor subject. An instituted object, quasi-object, quasi-subject, a thing that possesses body and soul indissociably”

The quote postulates on the agency of objects. I love the idea of neither subject nor object in relation to the web. I’m sure there is loads of stuff already written on Actor Network theory?and the internet and it’s not a new idea. It’s not my area but I had a quick peek and found Sociology in the Age of the Internet by Allison Cavanagh, but I’m sure there are a wealth of journal articles to choose from if you’re that way inclined. What’s got me excited though is that there has been a lot of chit chat about the web being social, but I think it should be thought of in terms of ?neither object nor subject.

As Latour says it is perhaps quasi-object. Although one can talk of the social lives of things and the sociality of objects, as non-object non-subject the web can not be inherently social, rather social is what we inscribe in it. The social is the human version of the thing. D’ya getme?

For more on Latour here is a cool blog I found by another per her der with an interview from Latour on digital traces.

I went to the 1st of the evening media seminars at Brighton University yesterday to hear Dr Kate O’Riordan from Sussex give her paper “The Genome incorporated: Constructing Biodigital Identity’” which

“examines the intersection of genome sequencing and digital media practices through a discussion of interactivity, social networking and genome browsing which centres around the personal genome sequencing company23andMe “

In terms of social networking 23andMe has a community function whereby users compare their genome data with other people signed up for the service. As I commented last night I can really see this ending up as some sort of face-book style application  / public profile. 

What was especially interesting to me is that Google is one of the investors of 23andMe. 

As the article points out

the investment could be seen as Google’s first step towards indexing genetic information.

Food for Thought

If Google were able to combine the immense amounts of user data they collect right now with the health and medical data that could potentially be gathered from Google Health AND combine that with data potentially available to them through 23andMe, a person’s Google profile could be a dangerous thing. What if this hypothetical Google profile ever got into the hands of a health insurance provider? Could you be denied coverage based on a genetic predisposition to cancer? What if you also often search terms like “breathing problems” and “wheezing,” or you’ve emailed a cancer specialist to try and get an appointment?

Atlanta Highway by Choking Sun

In between juggling getting back into thesis mode, teaching, supervising undergrad dissertations and general research-arama, I’m slowly, slowly trying to spruce up thinking is the new black. Therefore I’ve been having a poke around the blogosphere over the last few days, and looking at blogs I like, such as The Sartorialist, Fresh Peel, this one about culture and brands, the brilliant brilliant stylebubble.

I came across a discussion about  an analogies for the web recently, which captured my imagination, and reminded me of an amusing conversation I had with a colleague, about the different words and phrases people use for the same technologies, and how these can shape our perception. The idea of streams makes me think of the Amazon and all its’ tributaries,  which in turn makes me think of  Bruce Parry.  * sigh & goes all girly* 

It is very interesting to me that we as humans require analogies and metaphors for communication and information revolutions.  It’s discourse init.

Some of these analogies for what is happening in the web and social media, make me feel slightly uncomfortable, and think about the notion of echo chambers. It’s about the suitability of a metaphor to an intended audience. I haven’t really had the time or inclination to develop this further at the moment. However there is a brilliant reference by Phil Agre on the internet and public discourse.

I found it on this site I really like,  the v useful resource from  Caslon Analytics group. 

Also it’s all referenced bootifuly using the Harvard System. Nicely.

Thinking about the internet has been bedevilled by a range of metaphors such as the ‘information superhighway’, ‘digital divide’ and ‘broadband gap’. This page considers conceptual challenges and particular memes. 

Thanks to Peter Kay, I, like hundreds of others have been guilty of using the t’interweb in professional situations -such is its’ acceptance into common parlance in the UK. I’m also a huge fan of The Internets, and the terribly retro sounding,  Information Superhighway. Of course, these all mean slightly different things, are historically specific and depend on who’s doing the talking.

I’m quite fond of the town square and placing web theory in context with Habermas, as you know. But the reason I still quite like Information Super Highway, is that it evokes the idea of networks: sometimes monolithic motorways with service station stop offs, or contrasting bendy country lanes, bridle paths and cycle lanes, sometimes gridlocked, but very often going nowhere, empty or abandoned. 

Two items have caught my attention in the National media this week. The article in The Sunday Times magazine supplement about face-book, and the feature in the digital planet pod-cast from The World Service on the 29th about an ancient Aboriginal tribe and DRM. As a quick aside I have always been quite big on pod-cast, but since I got my iPod touch the other week I have found a renewed ardour. I listened to the BBC in the gym this morning and I’ve been punctuating journeys on public transport with snippets of audio dharma. Isn’t technology marvellous?

The feature about the The Mukurtu Wumpurrarni-kari project is a fascinating example of the social shaping of technology and a rare example of a non Westernize slant on the whole digital rights discussion. This captured me because it considered deep rooted cultural practices in the development of online content. To my mind a really excellent example of anthropology in practice.

But The Times article… well first off, I was quite surprised to be even reading it. I am not a fan of the paper as it is, but buy it on a Sunday because the style section is one of the unsung heroes of the fashion press. This article struck me as very old hat. I hope they aren’t going to do this every week like the Mail on Sunday / Princess Di thing.

Here are the main points ZZzzzzz….see going all sleepy already it’s so yesterdays news.

• Social networking is really popular I’m sorry, but even my mother a complete laggard is aware of this.

• Online personas may not be the front of an authentic person. People are not always who they say they are, plus there are wierdos on social networks. There is no such thing as an authentic self. Come on.

• We are in the throes of a revolution, (imagine dramatic music in the background here) Who can predict what it’s impact will be? I am so irrated by this I find it hard to type. Article did not include a definition of revolution either. Rubbish.