The development of Local Producers

Dit is het derde bericht van serie van vier berichten met als onderwerp ‘leven in een digitale wereld’. Deze berichten zijn allen onderdeel van het vak ‘living in a digital world’, onderdeel van de track ‘New Media and Communication’, afstudeerrichting van het masterprogramma ‘Communication Studies’. Het door mij gekozen thema bij aanvang van dit vak was ‘het hebben van meer sociale contacten in de digitale wereld’. Aan de hand van de wekelijkse artikelen heb ik gezocht naar verklaringen en zijn er nieuwe vragen bovengekomen. Reacties en / of opmerkingen zijn altijd welkom!

Introduction

To start this reflection, I want to introduce my theme during this course. In my opinion is having more social contacts a great advantage of living in a digital world. A larger social network is in my opinion a great improvement of life because it has advantages for networking, gaining knowledge, and social activities. I am trying to gain more knowledge by reflecting the articles of this week on my theme. Is having more social contacts really an advantage? How did we create the possibilities to create more social contacts? And how do these new digital social contacts compare to face-to-face social contacts?

Meeting more local people

The article of Mitchell (1996) gives an overview of building transformations in different sectors like bookstores, galleries, theaters and schoolhouses. Although this is a thirteen year old article, it gives some interesting views on the development of the digital world. For me, an important point in this article was the much-quoted aphorism by Winston Churchill: we make our buildings and our buildings make us. The author states that it is time to update this aphorism to the following: we make our networks and networks make us. To me, this sounds very interesting after reading the article of Churchill and Ubois (2009), who make a point about the definition of ‘local’. The term ‘local’ was not only used to describe things physically proximate, but also to relate to affiliation and personal identity. When I reflect these definitions on the shift from institutions supported by buildings to institutions supported by networks, it creates the possibility to meet people who are not only physically proximate, but also individuals who are close to your personal identity, and where you have an easy connection with because of the shared interests. By expanding this possibility to meet ‘local’ individuals, individuals can expand their social network.

In my opinion could this development to get in contact with more people who are ‘local’ to you, lead to more social contacts, because most of the contacts an individual has are to some extent local, physically or related to personal identity, and because you have a good starting point to develop a social relation. When you are for example playing a video game, the digital world gives you the opportunity to use the network to meet teammates, opponents, and other users using the game. These are all users you have some sort of connection with, some sort of locality, because you are having the same interest, playing this game.

Buildings from the 21st century

We can, to a certain point, compare the buildings where individuals came together, like Smirke’s circular, domed reading room at the British Museum library, with the digital possibilities we use these days. Mitchell (1996) states that the popular graphic interfaces of personal computers function in much the same way as Smirke’s careful architectural arrangements. The conclusion I get from this is that networks connecting personal computers, or for example websites with popular graphic interfaces, can be seen as buildings 2.0, or buildings from the 21st century. Isn’t this a great opportunity for – for example – religion to spread the word, get in contact with their followers, or even recruit new followers, who are not physically proximate, but do have the same beliefs and standards, and are also ‘local’?

The possibilities for religion on the internet

Kluver and Hope Cheong (2007) interviewed twenty religious leaders in Singapore, and these leaders regarded the internet as a valuable tool for disseminating information and contributing positively to their religious communities. In my opinion are these conclusions not applicable to the rest of the world, because of the specific characteristics of Singapore, and the state’s role in promoting religion via the implementation of a religious knowledge program in the national educational curriculum in the early 1980s. However, I would like to refer to some points of this article. Most of them only referred to the internet as a place to gather information, not as a place for community building, which is in my opinion, and regarding the article of Mitchell (1996) a chance they are missing, for the different religions as well as the religious individuals. A religious community could be an opportunity for religious individuals to meet other individuals who are ‘local’ for them, because of shared interests, in this case religion. Because religion is also an event where it involves a group of people coming together, which is also possible in the digital world in my opinion, individuals with the same interests are brought together, and have an opening for developing a social relationship.

As showed by Boyd and Ellison (2008), social networks or communities do help strangers to connect based on shared interests, political views, or activities. They also state that most of the social networks attract homogeneous populations initially, meaning that it is not uncommon to find groups using sites to segregate themselves by nationality, educational level, or other factors that segment society, even if this was not the intention of the designers. To me this shows that people are looking for others with the same interests, activities, or political views, and easier make a social contact when someone has this same interests, activities, political views or other factors. I think that these statements and findings by Boyd and Ellison (2008) show some good reasons for religion that they could bring followers from all over the world together – because of their shared interest, the religion – by making use of a community, and that this leads to more social contacts under their followers.

Case: Twitter and the Iranian revolution

The developing locality in terms of individuals who are close to your personal identity and where you have an easy connection with, can also be reflected on the article of Castells, Fernandez-Ardevol, Qiu and Say (2007). This article is about the use of communication networks for social movements and political power, especially by using mobile phones and the internet. A missing chapter in this article – because of its age – is the use of communication networks in the Iran revolution, which were about clashes between opposition protesters and government forces loyal to Mahmud Ahmadinejad. This case is in my opinion a very important addition to this chapter, and to my theme.

Twitter, a rapidly growing microblog, was used on mobile devices and personal computers to spread information. Because of the near-universal language of the Iranian twitterers cry for freedom, it was almost unavoidable that prominent American political activists would retweet (re-posting a tweet from a certain individual to your followers) their messages (Ambinder, 2009). By retweeting these messages, responding on these message, or turning their avatar green to show support for the people who fight for democracy at Iran, individuals show that they share the same vision, and that they are ‘local’ to each other when it comes to the political question in Iran. Also, just as at the Philippines, these new media technologies, in this case Twitter, enabled Iranian people from all over the world to participate more easily and get in contact with people in Iran. This participation from people who feel ‘local’ with the Iran people, although they are far away, can create the opportunity to establish new relationships, and create more social contacts. This is in my opinion partial facilitated by the transparent network Twitter is. You can see – and thus easily contact – who sends you a message, who retweeted your message, or who is visually supporting the Iranian people.

Creating relationships being a producer and consumer

In my opinion it is not just the characteristic of feeling ‘local’ to someone that spreads his thoughts, that creates an opportunity establish a social relationship. As seen in the case studies from Castells et al. (2007) and in the Twitter case I described, individuals can be producers and consumers with the use of new technologies. Anyone with a personal computer and a network connection can pump out bits, and be a producer (Mitchell, 1996). How can this growing trend that everyone can be a producer leads to more social contacts?

With the development of mass media, there also was a development of parasocial interaction, interaction by individuals with media figures as though he, she or it were a real person (Giles, 2003). This interaction can eventually become a parasocial relationship. The conclusion I get from this development is that consumers are able to create parasocial relationships with producers, where one of the elements of parasocial is that there is no personal contact. With the current shift that everybody can be a producer, there becomes a vague line between parasocial relationships and social relationships. When we look at for example the Twitter case about Iranian people, we see that Twitter creates the possibility to respond on the producing individuals, and to get in contact with them. Is the development of parasocial relationships with individuals who produce through mass media a good predictor of the development of social relationships with individuals who produce in a same way, but where we can get easily in contact with?

Conclusion

By reflecting on the subjects of locality and being a producer and consumer, I come to the conclusion that the partial shift from buildings to networks as described by Mitchell (1996) leads to more opportunities for creating social contacts. First, this partial shift creates possibilities for everybody to be a producer. By being producers and consumers, individuals can get connected to each other, which could eventually lead to a social relationship, based on the theories for parasocial interaction. Second, there is the new possibility to easily meet and contact people who are ‘local’ to you, meaning individuals that you share the same interests, beliefs, or norms with. People are looking for people with the same interests, age, political views or other, as shown by Boyd and Ellison (2008), so this could lead to more social contacts.

References

Ambinder, M. (2009). The Revolution Will Be Twittered. Obtained at December 4, 2009 from http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/its_too_easy_to_call.php

Boyd, D. M. & Ellison, N.B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.

Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J. L. & Sey, A. (2007). Mobile Communication and Society. A Global Perspective. Chapter 7: The mobile civil society: Social Movements, Political Power, and Communication Networks (pp. 185-215). MIT Press.

Churchill, E., Ubois, J. (2009). Lead type, dead type: New patterns of local news production and consumption. Paper presented at EPIC 2009, Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference, Chicago, IL. August 30th-September 2nd.

Giles, D. (2003). Media Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kluver, R. & Hope Cheong, P. (2007). Technological Modernization, the Internet, and Religion in Singapore. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 1112-1142.

Lyon, D. (2009). Identifying Citizens. ID cards as Surveillance. Chapter 6: Cyber-Citizens (p. 131-155). Polity Press.

Mitchell, W. J. (1996). City of Bits. Space, Place and the Infobahn. Chapter 4: Recombinant Architecture (p. 47-105). MIT Press.