Thoughts on Six Degrees

This weekend a friend posted this video of a happy dog seeing his owner for the first time after his deployment in Afghanistan. Of course its heartwarming to see a dog so happy, But the info posted by Capt. Andrew Schmidt is fascinating. He describes is own shock as a video he posted on April 11, 2008 became a sensation a year and a half later. He posts on November 14, "This is getting crazy. They ran this on the Today Show today. I'm not a public person ... this is getting a little intimidating. I'm glad that this clip of Gracie has made so many people happy." On the 15th he says "You have to be careful, because you have no control when you go on TV unless you are very, very savvy (I am not). Or you get crazy and end up building a UFO weather balloon in your back yard."
What is it about this particular video? Why did this one go viral?

In his book Six Degrees: The Science of A Connected Age Duncan Watts is attempting to explain this phenomena. Watts gives a broad overview of the history of network theory and small worlds. He discusses the famous Stanley Milgram experiments and how it led to the the term "Six Degrees of Separation". From there he explains how his own experiments and that of his colleagues, give further insight into the way networks behave. He shows that networks made up of completely different things can still behave in similar ways. One of his first tests was to compare the actors (six degrees of Kevin Bacon), electrical power grids, and the bacterium C. Elegans. All three groups qualify as small world networks because they had some "mechanism by which two nodes that are connected to a common third node are more likely to be connected to each other than two nodes picked at random." (p. 97) Even though small world networks can be found everywhere, they are not the only type of network. Watts spend most of the book finding the similarities in different networks and then points out the discrepancies in these findings. It can be a little frustrating. Just when you think Watts is going to lay down a mathematical formula that will predict network behavior, he instead shows the many ways the network is unpredictable. But, he believes studying them can give insight as to why events happen in a particular way. Watts explains:

"Networks share resources and distribute loads, and they also spread disease and transmit failure--they are both good and bad. By specifying precisely how connected systems are connected, and by drawing explicit relationships between the structure of real networks and the behavior (like epidemics, fads, and organizational robustness) of the systems they connect, the science of networks can help us understand our world." (p. 303)

Beyond the explanation and overview of network theory, the book is a narrative about how one scientists' own social network led to many studies, experiments and ultimately the book. Each time Watts introduces a new colleague or thinker, he gives an account of how he came to know them. He's illustrating once again the breadth of small world networks, even as he explains them.
Here are some last thoughts:

If Manovich divides new media into two forms the database and the narrative, where does the network fit in? The very fact that we are so connected through a network allows the databases to be built. Without a network there is no Wikipedia, or Huffington post or Youtube.

Is there a bit of MacLuhan in Watts' work? Is the network as "medium" also the message?

Smells Like Teens

Smell like teens...

When I go see a movie at Northpark Mall I often have this moment of "Wow, that's what teenagers look like now, I haven't seen one in a while." In my neighborhood, you see a lot of parents with young children, married couples without kids, and singles, but teenagers are quite rare. I forget the limited number of public spaces that are available to people under 18. I remember in high school walking the aisles of the 24 Hour Kroger just because it was open and we still had time before we were expected to be home. Teens seek out places where they can express themselves away from the watchful eyes of teachers and parents. Its in these places that they form their identities, as individuals apart from their parents. Now, with all the anti-loitering and teen curfew laws there are even fewer public spaces that are available to teens. As danah boyd explains in "Taken Out of Context" teens have turned to social media as their public space and it is an important part of expressing their identity. (p.171) Boyd provides a great number of anecdotes about how teens use myspace and facebook as forms of expression and interaction. The design and content of their pages, and even the service they choose (facebook vs. myspace or both)are reflections of how they want to represented.

What I found most interesting and a little disturbing is how fear underlies many of the decisions teens make about their online identities.
Many were reluctant to join social media because they were afraid of sexual predators. They are encouraged to lie and hide information in order to be "safe". While parents seem to fear that any minute a stalker will come out of the computer and grab their child, the teens seem to have a good understanding of safe and reasonable behavior. As boyd points out:

"Teens had numerous strategies for staying safe, many of which mirrored the strategies that adults and safety organizations perpetuated. Upset that teens were being restricted from social network sites, Danny, a 17-year-old from Florida, emailed me with a list of safety guidelines that he thought all teens should adopt:
A) Only accept “Buddy Requests” from people you know personally/are bands.(Cheesy, I know, but it’s the safest way. I have around fifty-eight friends, and I can tell you their name, address, or what their most popular songs are).
B) Don’t give out personal information. (I don’t have my school listed even! State and City, that’s it. Don’t give it when asked.)
C) When posting a picture, ask if it shows you in a positive manner, and if it is something you would wear to go visit your grandparents/religious leader. (Mine are!)
D) Keep your parents involved. If you hide things from them, they will find out, and you will get in trouble. Be open with them—most of the time, they are cool about stuff like this." (p.284)

What a good kid. Its frustrating that so many children have to work through these basically unfounded fears to navigate their social world. From the moment teens were labeled as a demographic group, adults have feared the things teen love. Comic books, rock and roll, video games, Dungeons and Dragons (also known by its made-for-tv movie name "Mazes and Monsters"), are the source of danger, ignoring the real causes of social problems like neglect, poverty, or addiction. Boyd explains:

"Research shows that teens are not randomly at risk; psychosocial problems combined with risky behaviors are the key predictors of risk
(Ybarra and Mitchell 2008). In other words, the teens others see as “stupid” for not understanding how to be safe may actually be dealing with much larger personal issues." (p. 273)

Also, its easier to blame an aspect of media than to accept the fact that sometimes random, terrible things happen and there is no one to blame. By focusing anxiety towards media parents are able to feel in more control. Parents can use the issue of safety as a means to limit the independence of their child. They are able to justify invading a child's privacy if they suspect their child is involved in risky behavior.

boyd's work also made me think about the decisions I make on social media, and how I don't believe adult habits are that much different from teen's. As adults we like to think that our mediated social group is not filled with quite as much drama or angst. But, I have friends who suffered the wrath of thier wives for a thoughtless status update or comment, and even one person who lost their job because of something they posted on myspace. Personally, I'll admit to having tiny sense of outrage when someone "defriended" me. I hadn't been there in a long time but looking at my myspace profile made me wonder how much had I changed from the girl who plastered her bedroom walls with pictures of James Dean, John Lennon and INXS. And yes, I'm a little hesitant about showing you the old myspace profile, but what the heck. Hopefully you won't judge me too harshly.

Lastly the whole myspace vs. facebook thing reminds of the debate in the sixties amongst teenage girls. Beatles or Rolling Stones.
(I pick the Beatles even though picking the Stones would mean I'm edgier.)

Thanks for reading. Only 3 Blogs left!

Foucault and Nakamura

Foucault: Discipline and Punish

Everyday our decisions are influenced by the fact that someone may be watching us. I don't speed during my morning commute because of the friendly officers with radar guns. I'm careful not turn right on that red light, because of the newly installed camera.
In "Discipline and Punish", Foucault compares modern society to the Panopticon. The Panopticon was a prison design invented by Jeremy Bentham. The idea behind the Panopticon was to design a prison where a single guard could see all the prisoners but remain unseen. The fact the prisoners know that they are possibly being watched will make them behave. Foucault explains " . . . the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. " (470) The Panopticon was never actually constructed, but Foucault used this idea to form the social theory of panopticism. He explains that society has two types of disciplinary images the discipline-blockade and the discipline-mechanism. The discipline-blockade wields it power in enclosed institutions, that separate groups of individuals. Prisons, schools and hospitals are examples. The discipline-mechanism affects an entire population and relies on surveillance to force the population into compliance. Foucault named this mobile and extendible societal formation panopticism.
In our panoptic society we accept the fact authorities and other citizens are watching us and adjust our behavior accordingly. Its a quiet almost invisible form of discipline.

Over the years there has been much debate about an individual's privacy vs. the public good. People feared the surveillance and it was manifested with terms like Big Brother. Now, privacy does not seem to hold as much importance. In a post 9/11 world, citizens seem more willing to be watched, searched and recorded assuming that this makes the world a safer place. Also, and perhaps more accurately, people volunteer private information in the name of convenience, or entertainment. Its a cheery happy panopticon, where we are aware of being watched and we're comfortable with it. In fact, we use it to our gain. In this CNN.com article Pete Cashmore, claims that privacy is dead and that being too private can damage your career, and ultimately leave you marginalized in society. We are encouraged to reveal information in order to make friends and further our careers, while knowing that this information will be used by others to make money.
Ultimately, what are we really giving up and what are we gaining? I keep thinking about how exotic dancers will argue that they aren't being exploited, but work voluntarily. The "choice" makes it okay. But, with all the pressure to bank, register, educate, buy, and socialize online. Do we really have a choice?

Lisa Nakamura: Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age In Digital Reproduction

Want to get really depressed? Read the comments at the end of any article on dallasnews.com. Inevitably any social problem will be blamed on people of color. Its horrible. Yep. Racism is alive and well and reflected everyday on innumerable websites. Lisa Nakamura asserts that the internet has created a new kind of sterotyping and racism which she calls "cybertyping". She says:

"Cybertypes are more than just racial stereotypes "ported" to a new medium. Because the Internet is interactive and collectively authored, cybertypes are created in a peculiarly collaborative way, they reflect the way that machine enabled interactivity gives rise to images of race which both stem from a common cultural logic and seek to redress anxieties about the ways that computer-enables communication can challenge these old logics. . . Cybertypes are the images of race that arise when the fears, anxieties, and desires of privileged Western users (the majority of Internet users and content producers are still from Western nations) are scripted into a textual/graphical environment that is in constant flux and revision."

Nakamura views the promise of a "post-racial democracy" as nothing more than a device to hide racism in America. She explains that "Digital reproduction produces new iterations of race and racialism, iterations with roots in those produced by mechanical reproduction. Images of race from older media are the analog signal which the Internet optimizes for digital reproduction and transmission." Instead of moving past racial stereotypes they are more easily reproduced, amplified and distributed with digital technology.

Nakamura wrote this essay a few years before blogging and social media became commonplace. Now its is much more difficult to separate your online identity from your true identity. In fact, it seems like a waste of time. How can you be social if you are not at least some semblance of yourself? What would be the point. By contributing to the blogosphere and participating in social media, minorities now have an opportunity to express and "broadcast" their viewpoint in way that was unavailable through traditional media. And the racial stereotypes and social conflicts are also more easily disseminated. I would like to hear Nakamura's comments since the election of President Obama and his campaign's use of Web 2.0.

Great. I'm a scribe.

Great. I'm a scribe. This weekend I had an "Obsolescence Party" at my house. Guests were invited to play the Atari 2600 and Super Nintendo game systems, drink Tab or Bartles & James wine coolers, and bring obsolete items for show and tell. My items were a slide rule and a Bernoulli disk that holds 90MB of information.
I don't know what a slide rule's for, (Sam Cooke reference) but the disk holds a lot of meaning for me. It stored the first graphic I ever made as a professional broadcast graphic designer. And now its just a piece of plastic, the machine that I trained on for almost a year just to make a simple graphic was replaced over a decade ago by Adobe Photoshop. Instead of computer graphics being an exclusive club with only a few practitioners, kids are taking animation classes in high school. Clay Shirky in Here Comes Everybody says:

"The spread of cheap and widely available creative tools is sad for people in the advertising business in the same way that movable type was sad for scribes--the loss from this kind of of change is real but limited and is accompanied by a generally beneficial social change." (209)

I agree. It is sad. And sometimes I wonder what's so "beneficial" about the social change? The reading once again reinforces the theme of this class: we are in the midst of revolutionary change and as Shirky points out,

"The comparison with the printing press doesn't suggest that we are entering a bright new future--for a hundred years after it started, the printing press broke more things than it fixed, plunging Europe into a period of intellectual and political chaos that ended only in the 1600's." (73)

Shirky's title Here Comes Everybody is appropriate because it sounds optimistic, but let's face it, we don't like "everybody". Its like public transportation. Convenient, yes. But it loses some of its appeal when a crazy, smelly dude sits by you and wants to strike up a conversation about UFO's. Don't get me wrong. (not a Pretenders reference) There are features of this revolution that are both trivial and wonderful. Never having to decode the "Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature" --awesome. Watching the season premiere of "30 Rock" on Hulu--awesome. But even these little conveniences have a price, some company is probably bankrupt because the "Reader's Guide" was their major client, and Hulu is contributing to the demise of broadcast television and my own career. Beyond these small conveniences, new ways to gather knowledge and express ideas are spreading to millions of people. In his epilogue and in this speech, Shirky explains how, social media tools after the China Sichuan earthquakes challenged the Chinese government's control over information. While they were prepared to filter the major media outlets they failed to realize that ". . . services like QQ and Twitter erode the the distinction between 'media' and 'communication.'"(297) Ordinary citizens now had the tools to "report" and "broadcast" to anyone. The tools are there, and its doesn't matter if I, or governments, or institutions like it. Shirky compares the dramatic improvement in socials tools to steering a kayak "We have a small degree of control, but that control does not extend to being able to reverse, or even radically alter, the direction we're moving in. Our principal challenge is not deciding where we want to go, but rather staying upright as we go there."

I think most of us are in the Emerging Media and Communication program, because we are trying very hard to stay upright. It would be nice if there were some clear answers. Do this, learn this, and you will never be obsolete. But for all of us who were on friendster or had a geocities web site, its pretty apparent that there's no solid way to predict the next "BIG THING" or know if this "BIG THING" has true staying power. Two things from the reading stand out to me. First, Shirky likes to compare elements of social media to barn raising, a group of people can build a barn or open source software in a short time, while individually a farmer or coder might never be able to. Much of the success of social media depends on the participation of the users and their willingness to contribute their work, time, creativity for free. Secondly, failure is tolerated, in fact its expected. Meetup groups fail, but new information about what works and doesn't work is gathered. So what's a 21st Century scribe to do? I think we have to contribute, participate, and can't be afraid to fail.

On that note, I was very intrigued by the social media tool, dodgeball, that Shirky mentions in Chaper 9, so I did a little research. Turns out it was bought by Google and the service was ended. But, the creator has a new service called foursquare. I've joined and even started contributing. Let's see if it fails. (By the way, right now I have 2 friends. It would be great to have more... hint?) Lastly, I recommend A Whole New Mind by Daniel H. Pink if you are creative professional in need of a pep talk.

Fun with Public Spheres

Let's order some coffee, grab a seat, start up a conversation, change the world.

Who would have thought that the importation of coffee from the Ottoman Empire would contribute to transforming the social/political structures of Western Europe. Frequented by both aristocracy and bourgeois society, they were a place to learn the news and exchange ideas. They were the nexus of "the public sphere". Jurgen Habermas defines the public sphere as ". . . a realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed." The public sphere was not the physical coffee house, but the discussion that took place within its walls. It was made up of private individuals who as a public body transmitted the needs of society. The newspaper became a vital element of the public sphere and was no longer just a compilation of notices or recent events, but influenced public opinion. This changed once newspapers became commercialized. (around 1830) Jurgen says, "In the transition from the literary journalism of private individuals to the public services of the mass media, the public sphere was transformed by the influx of private interests, which received special prominence in the mass media."
Peter Boeder sums this up nicely:

"According to Habermas, the emergence of the mass press is based on the commercialisation of the participation of the masses in the public sphere. Consequently, this ‘extended’ public sphere lost much of its original political character in favour of commercialism and entertainment."

The conversations at the coffee houses were silenced by radio and television. The idea of public opinion was transformed into publicity and public relations.

Habermas' ideas have become a source of debate since the digital revolution.
Are internet communities just another form of media commodity controlled by commercial interests? Or are they virtual public spheres?

Pieter Boeder says that "New forms of citizenship and public life are simultaneously enabled by new technology and restricted by market power and surveillance." He quotes Rheingold's argument that "The consumer society, the most powerful vehicle for generating short-term wealth ever invented, ensures economic growth by first promoting the idea that the way to be is to buy." With each new form of social media, commercialization occurs and effects the discourse. Bloggers are now sponsored by companies to write reviews. Facebook removes Scrabulous due to pressure from Hasbro.

Poster says:

"The question of the potential for new forms of social space to empower individuals in new ways is foreclosed in favor of preserving existing relations of force as they are embodied in the state."

Institutions will impose their will. Napster is shut down. YouTube videos blocked due to copyright issues.

Boeder concludes "The public sphere is alive and well, although it will never be quite the same. Habermas' coffeehouse discourse has evolved in the direction of mediated communication within electronic networks: Its future is with the digital media, which offer exciting possibilities as digital networks enhance and change social structures"
Twitter seems to meet that "coffeehouse ideal" because the users have determined much of its language and protocols. And of course its use during the Iraq elections is evidence of its power to spread news and information directly from the user/citizen.

The public sphere as a face-to-face community has been transformed into a form of electronically mediated discourse.
But what sort of discourse? Habermas believed that critical and rational discussion would minimize prejudices and fortify democracy. Looking at online discussions I'm not so sure. Are we debating or hurling insults. Is this really participation? Sometimes I agree with Fernback and Thompson:

"It seems most likely that the virtual public sphere brought about by (computer-mediated communication) will serve a cathartic role, allowing the public to feel involved rather than advance actual participation."

Final Note:
I really liked Poster's idea that the internet is not a tool but a social space. (Hammer vs. Germany) When I think of it in those terms, its potential seems so much broader. Its not just a tool to make money, or communicate, but a place. A place to shop (of course) but also to interact, learn, create, contribute, enjoy. Nice.

Thanks. Must pass out now.

Where's My Decoder Ring?

Stuart Hall in Encoding/Decoding explains the process of mass communication in terms of production, circulation and reception. He describes it as a "continuous circuit". Within the production process a message is created or "encoded". The viewer decodes the message. "Meaningful" discourse occurs at the junction of encoding and decoding. Institutions, personal experience, and ideologies effect both the creation of the message and how the message is received. He says the production process is 

" . . . framed throughout with meanings and ideas: knowledge-in-use concerning the routines of production, historically defined technical skills, professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions, assumptions about the audience and so on frame the constitution of the programme through this production structure."

This statement made me think about how production techniques influence the way televisions producers create a message. One thing I thought of was how all television production used to be tape-based. Its obvious that tape carries video and audio information. But it also has other types of information, control track and professional tape has time code. Time code is a data stream laid onto tape that assigns a specific time to each frame of video. This data allows a computer controlled editor to access a specific frame, allowing frame-accurate edit decisions to be made. In other words time code "translates" the information on the tape to a "language" that computers (and people) can understand and implement universally. For videotape editors, time code is the life blood, and tapes with breaks in time code can ruin their day. They may choose to omit a shot or soundbite if it doesn't have time code in favor of one that has. So, from one of the initial moments in the production process, a "code" is required to create the message and can influence the message. The production process constantly influences the content of a local newscast. The availability of a cameraman or reporter, a broken microphone, or fantastic video can all determine whether a story airs on a newscast. All of these factors effect the encoding of the message.

In new media the production process also effects the message and once again a code exists at its genesis. The very choice of a certain code (flash, html, java ...) impacts the message. The content of a web page is often determined by bandwidth, browser compatibility, screen resolution, or the limitations and preferences of the user's computer. A programmer may avoid using a flash animation, or large graphic files so that more internet users can view her page.

Another idea that really stood out for me is Hall's discussion of visual language and code in television. He says "The televisual sign is a complex one. It is itself constituted by the combination of two types of discourse, visual and aural." He adds that it is also iconic since tv uses a two-dimensional screen to translate the three-dimensional world. The newscast seem to be a perfect storm where these three forms meet.  While the anchor or reporter reads a story, there is a constant visual reinforcement with video or graphics. I find the graphics particularly interesting because they are an explicit example of iconic language yet they seem to be invisible to the casual viewer.

Here's an example of a typical OTS (over-the-shoulder). Without text or audio its easy to discern that the story is about school violence.

 

Or that this one is about hospitals. 

Even when using text there is a certain amount of "encoding" to further the meaning.

Programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are like a Russian nesting doll of visual language as they use the overall format of a newscast down to the graphics to create "fake" news. Internet sites like The Onion also use the visual language of a regular news site for comedic effects. These forms assume the receiver of the message is already versed in their particular visual language, and will interpret the message within the "dominant code". 

As the number of media outlets multiplies, and the language becomes more and more complex, its amazing that the viewers still manage to decode the message the encoders are trying to send.  

The Database

Last year while in Los Angeles I visited The Museum of Jurassic Technology. Its an odd place with a strange collection of objects. As I meandered through the museum, I came to realize the museum itself is the exhibit. The collections and information within its wallls are there to serve this purpose. It’s a simulation of a museum experience, with some real and some obviously fabricated exhibits. What was really important in this experience was the interface of the museum. Its presentation of the artifacts.

This experience came to my mind when Lev Manovich in his book “The Language of New Media” talked about the database as a dominant form in new media. Manovich divides what he terms “new media objects” into two forms, database and narrative. He says “ . . . works in new media can be understood as either constructing the right interface to a multimedia database or as defining navigation methods through spatialized representations.” Most often websites are some form of database, they are an interface to a collection of knowledge. Its easy to cite examples of this form, Facebook is a database containing information about people, what they like, the events they attend, the groups they belong to. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, one of the oldest forms of database. For Manovich,

“The database becomes the center of the creative process in the computer age. Historically, the artist made a unique work within a particular medium. Therefore the interface and the work were the same; in other words, the level of an interface did not exist. With new media the content of the work and the interface are separated. It is therefore possible to create different interfaces to the same material.”

In social media, the power of the interface is quite apparent. Why do people choose
Facebook over myspace? The information is essentially the same. Its about the way the information is presented and the ease with which we can access it.
Those examples are quite obviously database forms but Manovich asserts that

“Regardless of whether new media objects present themselves as linear narratives, interactive narratives, databases or something else, underneath, on the level of material organization, they are all databases . . . a database can support narrative, but there is nothing in the logic of the medium itself that would foster its generation.”

The way I understand it is that RPG’s (such as my favorite Final Fantasy VII) have narrative attributes, a storyline, but underneath, there is the database form. Instead of having immediate access to information, the user must perform certain tasks to acquire “skills” or “data”.

Manovich views the database as more than a “structured collection of data” but as a cultural form that is different from reading a story or watching a film. Manovich does not believe the database as cultural form exists solely in new media and cites examples in film such “The Man wth a Movie Camera”. The very structure of the movie is a database of shots arranged in a particular order to become a picture of modern life. Manovich says “. . .we may even call database a new ‘symbolic form’ of the computer age. . . the world appears to us an endless and unstructured collection of images, texts and other data records, it is only appropriate that we will be moved to model it as a database.”

Artists including Lev Manovich are still learning how to merge database and narrative into a new form. Games like The Path and the slow game movement may be the early stages of this new form. Or perhaps the new form will extend into the physical rather than digital world. The and/or Gallery’s YTMND show was a collection of internet memes, images, and animations displayed on video screens. A collection of collections. What is apparent in these exhibits and the Museum of Jurassic technology is that artists are aware of the relationship between interface and database and are using this relationship for expression.