Skip to content

I’m So Much Cooler Online

September 18, 2010

For a student like myself with little to no experience in media studies, New Media: A Critical Introduction lays the perfect foundation to understand the key ideas behind this interesting subject.  The main point of the book is to provide a foundation on the cultural implications and critical issues that have arisen over the past two decades with the emergence of new media technologies (1).  Structured like a textbook, New Media provides an array of different theoretical opinions in an attempt to expose the reader to all aspects of the subject.  As the introduction states, “the field is so complex that it cannot be addressed other than by combining, or synthesizing knowledges.” (1)  For me, this works out well; I enjoyed getting unbiased, informative information out of this book without being suffocated by an author’s strong opinions (cough, Mattellart, cough).

Considering that it would take me well more than a few pages to summarize the entire book, I wanted to talk about the section that most interested me: New Media in Everyday Life. This section focuses on popular new entertainment and communications media in daily life, emphasizing how this affects family relationships, routines, cultural practices, the home environment, etc.  So often we as human beings experience changes with introductions of new technologies and adapt our routines and way of life to them without even realizing it.  While this section does reveal new theories and insights, there are also a lot of ‘ahah!’ moments, when the authors take ideas that the reader already knows or has experienced firsthand, but puts them in a new context to make them useful. For example, the discussion of the effects on physical and social constraints on computer and network access reveals something that most have experienced in their own homes without ever thinking twice about.  Typically, a computer is located in the den or in  a spare bedroom of a home. Have we ever sat down and considered why that is? Why is it not normally found in the living room right next to other forms of media, such as the television? “It is argued, even where everyday consumption or use of digital networks is possible, that it is constrained by socio-economic factors, established by household politics and relationships of gender and age, and by material constraints of space and time.” (246) In addition, the multiple functions of the computer (that is, for educational and entertainment purposes) and the different levels of knowledge and authority of the computer users adds a distinct element to role the machine plays and how that effects the family (or community) using it.  In one example of a mother discussing her children’s computer use: “We try and stick to only two hours on the computer each in any one day…in terms of playing games. If they want to go on and do some homework, then that’s fine.” (46) Yet, it didn’t take long for this to get complex when educational software creators began disguising homework and ‘learning activities’ as games. Where does that leave Mom now?

Discussion Question: What socio-economic factors (or what I find particularly interesting, gender factors)  can you identify that inhibit or constrain the consumption of media technology?

The second half of this section introduces the topic of new media and identity. (Remember the discussion we had about identity, netizenship, nationalism, etc? This section contains a lot of the ideas we talked about during that discussion) More specifically, it examines the claims that identity and subjectivity have undergone (or are undergoing) and how the affects the contemporary living experience (267).  Personal home pages, for example, allow individuals to create a space that is their own; that can be what they want it to be and thus, allow them to express themselves.

A home in the real world is, among other things, a way of keeping the world out…An online home, on the other hand, is a little hole you drill in the wall of your real home to let the world in.

-John Seabrook

Susanna Stern’s study on the home pages of adolescent girls revealed that girls actually used their home pages to reflect the way they think they are, the selves they wish to become, and most likely, the selves they wish other to see (268). (Check out this song by Brad Paisley…so relevant to the discussion and new media’s effects on identity and the social structures revolving around it).

What stands out to me here is: Where can I find they girl AS SHE IS? Does the Internet and the ample opportunities it provides to recreate ourselves actually provide a medium to make that transformation happen in real life? That is, does who we define ourselves as online actually reflect reality? Again, we are back to the issue of ‘identity’ and what that really means. (When I play the Sims, I actually make myself a rocker-chick with purple highlights in my hair. I have enough confidence in who I am to know that I am not secretly wishing for a new identity, but it sure is fun to pretend for awhile 😉 ) Interesting topic to say the least!

3 Comments leave one →
  1. September 18, 2010 8:18 pm

    Yes, for sure an interesting conversation topic… The topic of the everyday is one of my favorites!!
    Without being too pessimistic or tooooo quick to answer, I’m going to say that one’s gender really isn’t altered too much. If anything… and now I reallllly dont’ want to answer too quickly, but I’m more inclined to say that it reifies it. Buuuuut, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be an agentic vehicle for at least some level of consciousness to the contraints of gender, or race, or sexual orientation, or anything for that matter… It doesn’t mean that new media can’t be used in ways to counter or subvert dominant narratives. MUDs, gaming, allows, as turkle discusses, for composition, and there’s power in that, even if it’s not on a global level. 🙂
    Also, I’m curious to hear more of your thoughts about your statement that this book was unbiased. And, did the layout (textbook-like) influence your thoughts? Personally, I didn’t see it as un-biased but this may be a great conversation!

    • allitravis permalink*
      September 18, 2010 8:38 pm

      I think I worded the question wrong…what I was going for was more along the lines of the discussion started in the book (pg 245) stating that the location of the computer in the home can often lead to unequal use…and that this inequality is frequently structured around gender. Thus, although girls SAY they like playing videogames as much as boys, they often PLAY less. This is often do to the fact that although they are often “shared” by the family, the consoles are usually kept in the boy’s rooms, hence the girls access is controlled by the boys. The argument continues to say that thus, “where everyday consumption of digital networks is possible, it is constrained by socio-economic factors established by household politics and relationships of gender and age.” (246). BUT I like the way you interpreted the question anyway, because it definitely adds a whole new twist to the idea!

      To answer your second question, the textbook-like format made it seem more like a factual presentation than a single author writing a long piece to try and eventually win you over to their opinion by the time you reach the conclusion. I liked having multiple authors’ viewpoints, and I felt like the book did a fair job arguing for different positions. There were multiple perspectives, unlike the last book, in which I felt Mattellart’s opinion overshadowing every line I read. Where did you see the bias at?

  2. September 19, 2010 12:50 pm

    I’ve been taught and I have learned that all language is political. There is no such thing as objectivity/neutrality because language is inherently subjective. What was not included is just as important if not more than what was included in a particular text, how it is presented and of course how it’s interpreted. For instance, I found parts of the authors pieces very unsatisfying. The postmodern piece in particular, because I thought the interpretation on postmodern thought was brash and superficial. Anytime you find yourself disagreeing, or questioning, or challenging a text, I think that reifies the notion that the author(s) of the text have their own particular way of looking at things. The textbook like appearance gives off the appearance that it is objective/neutral, but then we have to question where we accept that idea, which can be traced back to dominant ideologies that promote a particular way and idea of thinking… Anyway, I’m sure I’m veering off content… but this is always an inteeresting conversation (to me) and I like to hear other’s thoughts. 🙂
    Look forward to yours, and if this response seemed rushed it was bc I once again messed it up and had to start over. Technology, ugh! (sometimes) ha!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: