Today is the deadline for panel submissions, and last night I sent in three presentations that will hopefully make it onto the schedule in a few months. Check them out below!

1) Memes, Microcultures, and 2D Chicks: Our Future in the Otaku Gamer

A singing idol who doesn’t exist. Perverted text adventures boasting dozens of female prizes. And a popular, anime-tized evolution of the classic Space Invaders shooter that has spawned a global fandom. Japan’s subcultural players are obsessed with games that, well, aren’t actually about the gaming. Alex Leavitt (Comparative Media Studies, MIT) explains how a new generation of entertainment is succeeding in a market which chooses to de-emphasize the games in favor of the characters. And as the Japanese fans influence the industry through their own amateur initiatives, what will the future of American gaming hold when online fandoms adopt similar appetites?

2) Exploring International Geek Cultures Through Games

Even in the era of Internet forums and online gaming communities, our understanding of how and why geeks come together through games is pretty pathetic. From Europe to Asia to America, this panel takes a look at the technological environment in which gamers grew up and the transnational space in which geeks play today. Join Alex Leavitt (Comparative Media Studies, MIT) as he moderates a discussion between Philip Tan (Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab), Prof. Mia Consalvo (Visiting Professor, MIT), and Dr. Clara Fernández-Vara (GAMBIT) on the modern convergence and recurrent differences of the national geek factions that make up the global gaming ecosystem.

3) Trolling the Tubes: Culture Hacking Through Online Gaming

Thousands of Internet users cultivate pixelated gardens in Farmville, raise cyber-chickens in Second Life, and earn livings on Mechanical Turk without realizing that they are changing the face of online culture. From FreeRice to OKCupid, from gold miners in China to 4chan-ers in America, Alex Leavitt (Comparative Media Studies, MIT) takes a look at how online communities are redefining our friends, reorganizing our lives, and restructuring our society into a gaming culture. What will the future of the Internet look like when social networking might mean a social battleground of bots, trolls, and colorful flamewars?

A response to coverage of the KRAZY! anime & manga art exhibit at the New York Japan Society and a preview of my lecture/presentation at the Popular Culture Association national conference on Wednesday 8 April.

If geeks had never thought of anime as cool, it would never have become popular in America. This is a basic but true statement, hands down. One intrinsic tenets of being a fan of something is that we want more of it. So when science fiction geeks back in the ’70s noticed this new thing called anime being shipped over to the States, they wanted to get their hands on more. Once they were able to do just that, the opportunity to discover more about Japan became a reality.

I’m not here to say that geeks in America were the first to jump on the “Japan is awesome” bandwagon. In fact, interest in Japan hit another peak of popularity before the ’70s, when ukiyo-e block prints were exported to the States (to end up primarily at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston). It’s almost common knowledge nowadays that ukiyo-e were not respected by creators of high art in Japan; the Wikipedia page confirms this, describing the prints as “mainly meant for townsmen, who were generally not wealthy enough to afford an original painting. The original subject of ukiyo-e was city life, in particular activities and scenes from the entertainment district.” But artists — particularly those Impressionist painters in Europe, like Van Gogh, — thought the prints were cool (or at least different), picked them up like a frequent browser in a Barnes & Noble bookstore, and brought them home to share with their friends. The story of art and the story of fans.

Even before the Impressionist interest in ukiyo-e, people have been viewing Japanese “stuff,” or really Asian “stuff,” with that “This is certainly different” perspective. Edward Said, professor of Comparative Literature at Columbia University, even wrote a book about it, On Orientalism (1978). “According to Said, the West has created a dichotomy, between the reality of the East and the romantic notion of the “Orient. The Middle East and Asia are viewed with prejudice and racism. They are backward and unaware of their own history and culture. To fill this void, the West has created a culture, history, and future promise for them. On this framework rests not only the study of the Orient, but also the political imperialism of Europe in the East” (Western Michigan University). From the quoted description, basically, foreigners place fantastic identities over the realities of the East. In other words, we look at the East as different, then identify the East based on our assumptions, perceptions, etc.

Susan Napier, author of Anime: From Akira to Howl’s Moving Castle (2001, 2005) and professor at Tufts University, attempts to tackle the obsession over Orientalism in her most recent publication, From Impressionism to Anime: Japan as Fantasy and Fan Cult in the Mind of the West (2007). While Said presents the material in a relatively ambivalent tone, Napier takes a supportive stance on the matter, encouraging the Orientalist worldview. Almost in response to Said, she writes, “And yet Japan also shared one major element with its fellow Eastern Others, and that is its position as an object of fantasy to the West, or, more accurately, as the embodiment of a variety of fantasies to the West. I use the word ‘fantasy’ to suggest a range of connotations. Generally, ‘fantasy’ is interpreted in a positive light, as a wish-fulfilling dream…” (Napier 3). She goes on to mention the opposite, darker side of seeing the East as different (eg., “the fantastic term ‘Yellow Peril’”), but the comment is essentially dismissed by the following chapters of the book.

It may be a valid perspective to take on the issue of a “cool” Japan, but I do not believe that it is what Said meant to insist. Although he sees the study of the East as a positive reaction, ultimately the negative, sister-reaction is the imperialism of identity, or forcing extravagant, exotic, and overall exaggerated views on something like anime or manga. Yes, it’s true that Japanese culture can be weird, or pornographic, or violent, but 1) that’s not all it is, and 2) nowadays, what isn’t? That a book can be published twenty-five years after Akio Nakamori wrote “Otaku Studies” in Manga Burikko, calling Japanese fans “those kids — every class has one — who never got enough exercise, who spent recess holed up in the classroom, lurking in the shadows obsessing over a shogi board or whatever. That’s them. Rumpled long hair parted on one side, or a classic kiddie bowl-cut look. Smartly clad in shirts and slacks their mothers bought off the “all ¥980/1980” rack at Ito Yokado or Seiyu [discount retailers], their feet shod in knock-offs of the “R”-branded Regal sneakers that were popular several seasons ago, their shoulder bags bulging and sagging — you know them. The boys were all either skin and bones as if borderline malnourished, or squealing piggies with faces so chubby the arms of their silver-plated eyeglasses were in danger of disappearing into the sides of their brow; all of the girls sported bobbed hair and most were overweight, their tubby, tree-like legs stuffed into long white socks” (translation via Neojaponisme).

The problem today is that the Weird Japan perspective is still dominant in the American mindset. Perhaps it’s in part due to the proliferation of Japanese game shows in the early days of YouTube (and that, frankly, would be kind of awesome if it were the true reason). However, the fact that foreign policy is now dictated by seeing Japan as weird or cool is a bit strange and most likely the wrong attitude to take. Douglas McGray wrote his Japan’s Gross National Cool in 2002, stating that “Japan is reinventing superpower again [because] Japan’s global cultural influence has only grown” (in Foreign Policy magazine). When McGray quotes Toshiya Ueno (who recently spoke in a lecture at the Krazy! exhibit, which I will talk about more later) as confessing “I can’t always distinguish elements of traditional Japanese culture from Japanese culture invented for tourists,” I feel that such a confession proves Said’s point, in that America has looked upon Japan as an entity entirely different from its reality. To reiterate that point, I wonder just how many people think that anime is popular in Japan (because it’s not when you disregard the otaku — it’s seen as a kid’s thing, and if you’re in middle school you’d better not still be watching it unless you want to be branded as uncool). I could go on to argue that Japan’s governmental effort to export popular culture won’t work, because the fandom abroad didn’t grow on being fed, and that’s not how things become popular (just like how marketers trying to make something “viral” or “a meme” online will fail), but I’ll save that for another blog post.

But to approach the question I want to ask: Why do some people still see Japan as exotic? It’s been proved that we can look at the history of anime and fans in detail and with context — research that leads to well-founded results. For example, in 1999 in his book The Anime Companion: What’s Japanese in Japanese Animation, Gilles Poitras writes definitions in a faux-dictionary format for many Japanese and American terms that relate to fandom or animation. When he describes “otaku,” he does not illustrate the term à la Akio Nakamori, but writes, “The use of the term otaku has an interestig history. Literally, the word is written as a combination of the character for ‘house’ and the honorific prefix o- and can be translated as ‘your house.’ The word can also be used for ‘you’ as a very polite way of addressing another person in conversation. For many of the shy, socially inept young males who are anime and manga fans in Japan, such a safe way of speaking is common… The word sticks and is used by the media and fans to describe anyoe obsessed with a particular subject…” (Poitras 103). Clearly not a detailed elucidation, but fairly succinct nonetheless. The conflict occurs between the perspective of the fan (Poitras) versus the perspective of the media. Two years later, we still saw a popular media outlet like Wired Magazine publishing an article where even in the title, The Incredibly Strange Mutant Creatures who Rule the Universe of Alienated Japanese Zombie Computer Nerds (Otaku to You), by Karl Taro Greenfeld, the exoticism stands out. Perhaps it’s just the fact that the overall stereotype of the fandom today remains something like this:

I am not against people viewing Japan as cool. In fact, I support it, because Japan is cool. I went there; I know. Actually, the reality things there are so different (read: occasionally pretty f—ed up) makes the Japanese quotidian lifestyle, popular culture, food and sex and everything even cooler. It’s even better when people celebrate that fact. A few weeks ago I talked to Ian Condry (professor of Japanese at MIT, author of Hip-Hop Japan: Rap and the Paths of Cultural Globalization, and founder of the Cool Japan Research Project lecture series at MIT) about graduate school and anime studies, and we discussed the Cool Japan project for a few minutes. It’s basically an awesome set of lectures to attend if you’re ever in the Boston area. And it provides great access to things that are cool about Japan; this academic year, for instance, the lectures have focused on anime, politics, mobile phones, robots, and being… well, uncool. The project’s goals are described: “The project presents colloquia, international conferences, and arts events to examine the cultural connections, dangerous distortions, and critical potential of popular culture. The goal is to encourage scholarly debate, research, and networking in the Boston area for faculty and students interested in media and globalization related to Japan.” But nowhere do we see anything about some amazing new thing from Japan that’s weird and will blow your mind away. Here, Japan is about interest, not surprise.

However, the Japan Society in New York has a different perspective. From Friday 13 March to Saturday 14 June, they’re putting on an art/film/music/a-lot-of-other-stuff exhibit called KRAZY! The Delirious World of Anime + Manga + Video Games. Now, when I heard about this initially on the Anime/Manga Research Circle list, I was physched, because I’m still of the mind that greater access (to anything… usually…) is a good thing. What caught my immediate attention, though, was the name: Krazy! But not just that, because there’s also the blatant capitalization, the use of the word “delirious,” and the much-appreciated (read: much-sarcastic) application of plus signs. I guess I’ll go backwards to explain.

1) Not really sure why addition is a theme in the title of the exhibition, but since I can’t argue now, I can only explain. Perhaps the plus sign, up against the now-outdated (?) ampersand [&], is an artistic representation of the virtual future implied by Japanese animation and its related culture.
2) Delirious. Adjective. a) In an acutely disturbed state of mind resulting from illness or intoxication and characterized by restlessness, illusions, and incoherence of thought and speech. b) In a state of wild excitement or ecstacy. — Not sure the reasoning behind the use of the word delirious, but besides the fact that it embellishes and hyperbolizes anime and its following way beyond their actual nature, my guess would be that most attendees to the exhibit can’t even define the word and just glaze over it. One more point scored for institutions of higher education.
3) Using “krazy” is probably my biggest gripe. Subtitles can, for the most part, be ignored. But a headline like KRAZY! is overkill. The exclamation point. The capitalization. The misspelling. It reminds me of modern advertising that uses the word “like” as if it were correct grammar, the intent being to try to draw in a younger, more “modern” audience. It seems like the same thing is happening here. For the kids, the title attracts. For the adults, and especially the parents, it intrigues. KRAZY! is modern marketing at its best (which means the history of advertising at its worst).

But I’m not here to dismiss the exhibit. In fact, I still want to attend (even though I probably won’t be able to until the end of April, or after graduation in May. What I want to express is my continual irritation with what I see as exotic anthropologizing. Anime isn’t mainstream (look for a post on that in the future), but it’s not like it hasn’t been around in the states for a few decades, or at the very least hasn’t been prominent in the media since Miyazaki won his Academy Award on primetime American television in 2002. I have to live with the fact that the media will continually see popular culture as a bad thing — be it video games as violent, anime as pornography, the Internet as unsafe — but grad school would be boring if this wasn’t happening, because I’m interested in cultural perspectives with regard to media. And also, it’s been the story of the term “otaku” in Japan, ever since the media pegged Tsutomu Miyazaki as the otaku killer.

My reaction to KRAZY! was propelled by fellow anime bloggers’ personal reactions. It all started with JP and Hinano over at 見ないで! ひとり言. JP makes an eloquent point: “It reminds of the kind of cultural dilettantism that rubs me the wrong way, where some culture (and more accurately, some random aspect of culture that gets to stand in for the whole) becomes “so in right now” and is then stripped of context, recontextualized through the dilettante’s cultural lenses, and then is discarded,” which essentially becomes an irritation about non-fans trying to explain anime fandom, whether in the US of Japan. Ian Condry and I discussed that during our meeting, and it came up in my five-hour conversation with Lawrence Eng when I met him at South by Southwest this past weekend. Essentially, the question is not if scholars have a right to approach these topics, but whether they can sustain study in it long enough that anime doesn’t become an academic fad. Eng did bring up the issue of writing from the perspective of a fan (and writes at length about it in his PhD dissertation on otaku and technology), but the current trend seems to dictate that fans are more willing to come at academic or generally in-depth studies from a more objective angle. More coverage of the event (and definitely more positive coverage) can be found at Omonomono and Ogiue Maniax (the latter who, happily for me, writes, “Overall I didn’t get too much of a “HEY GUYS! ANIME!” vibe from the exhibition”). The most interesting piece of press ended up in the New York Times, where Ken Johnson reported that “the show is, in some ways, more like a faddish boutique than a museum exhibition.” However, Johnson does go on to say, and this sums up my point, that because the exhibit “leaves out fine art, it doesn’t make a strong case for why nonaficionados should take seriously genres that appear to be aimed at children and teenagers.” What I mean to say is that it’s not about whether or not it’s high or low or middle art, but that it’s already been appreciated, so it should be cultivated.

I’d definitely support going to see this exhibit. It seems fun, and I feel that interesting incentives like a Yoko Kanno listening booth add much to an exhibit “about anime, manga, and video games.” It seems that, although the poster and media depend a lot on Afro Samurai as a main attraction, there’s a lot of obscure or overlooked pieces on display (see About.com‘s review).

Also, this article has been a little exploration into a topic that I’m presenting a panel-form lecture on at the Popular Culture Association national conference in New Orleans, Louisiana at the beginning of April. If you’re down that way, maybe you can stop by and check out the Japanese Popular Culture: Anime panel that I’m on (that is, if the PCA doesn’t charge $100 just to see one or two talks). Otherwise, I’ll post my paper here online after the conference. If you’re looking through the PDF of the schedule I linked to, you can find me under “Otaku and the (Un)popular Fandom.”

Because of academic and extracurricular duties though, I had to skip out on all of the events Friday and Sunday (and, to be honest, Saturday morning, because I overslept). However, I did attend two very interesting panels on 1) Chinese religion versus secularization, and 2) comic and animation culture in Asia, presented by Professor John Lent. I was drawn to Lent presentation and it proved to be worthwhile. He went over a broad range of animation and its history in Asia, surprisingly with little inclusion of Japanese animation, instead focusing more on Western, Central, and Southern Asian comics.

I really want to the conference next year and dedicate a good amount of my time toward… being present. I think I’ll also try to prepare two white papers, because a lot of students presented small talks, panels, and discussion seminars based on personal research.

Last Thursday (10 April), I biked myself breathless after work over to MIT’s Bartos Theater to attend a panel discussion, hosted by the MIT Communications Forum, between Yochai Benkler and Cass Sunstein (heralded also by Henry Jenkins) entitled Our World Digitized: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The talk focused mainly on the positive and negative consequences of the digital age when global and communal populations converge in Web 2.0.

I really liked the panel, although it began with a very philosophically-styled debate between Benkler and Sunstein. Also, the former is much more suited to talk to an audience (sorry, Sunstein, but you’re such a lawyer, and hence sound like one). Sunstein seemed to focus more on the “bad” and Benkler the “good,” but both agreed on the positive connectivity present in the WIkipedia system. The main concern, said Sunstein, will be group polarization: a clustering of like-minded individuals that will further a predisposition or agenda (eg. Democrats and, say, pro-choice) so much so that it becomes violent and harmful. However, both agreed that the Internet will run its course based around two schemes: clustering and, the virtue, curiosity.

At both events, I dragged along my clunky PowerBook G4 to take notes (I might add quickly that most of Mac laptop users at both events were using the modernized MacBooks and it makes me a bit envious). Instead of notes, though, I considered liveblogging both events.

Liveblogging basically means to type and publish during the event. From what I’ve read, the purpose has been to beat other journalists to the digital press. The blogger does not simply play the role of transcriber, but should feel free to comment on subtleties of the event (eg. the speaker walking up to the podium) and to include an immediate subjective analysis.

I want to highlight the key word in my description of “liveblogging”: immediate. Again, the purpose appears to be to publish an account of the event as soon as possible, to gain the most attention from the reading audience. However, many nuisances crop up in relation to liveblogging’s immediate nature.

I believe the first difficulty to approach is how to define the relationship of journalism, or the role that journalism plays, to the general public. The blogger’s primary concern is one of objectivism. The journalist acts as intermediary between the incident and the audience, and at most times provides an objective reaction in layman’s terms. Basically, the journalist recounts to the public, word for word (or, that is the ideal situation). However, the journalist should strive for objectivism, to allow for his or her audience to overlay reaction, opinion, and subjectivism on its own.

I don’t think that liveblogging satisfies the necessity of objectivism. Blogging, inherently, consists of some element of the subjective. Ultimately, opinion and reaction fuel what is known as the Web’s blogosphere, to create a continual dialogue amongst users. Also, the second by second time limited environments in which these writers work do not allow for any sort of instantaneous judgments. Liveblogging eliminates the need to step back from the event, consider the content, and proceed to analyze.

Where does that leave me? For one, I had no need to beat anyone to the chase; so, really, what was the point of liveblogging? Essentially I just took notes, plain and simple. An interesting experiment: noteblogging. No grammatical priorities, no authorial input. Only what the writer took away from the event.

Well, I definitely take exhaustive notes. I’ll post both events’ at the conclusion of this post. But in conclusion: liveblogging is fairly worthless. I’ve read a few over the past week and honestly the sacrifice of style to make a deadline isn’t worth it.

Print & Film Cartoons: Nearing the Vanguard of East Asian Popular Culture
John Lent

International Journal of Comic Art

Q: why should animation & comics be studied academically?

Comics: ‘national book’ Philippines (komiks)

Jap manga: selling in billions every year; why do we have audiences for these media?

Stereotype; academic snobbery to not study comic/animation media

Trends seen in Asian comics/animation in last 20 years

Japan: 1.5/2 billion comic books sold; 45% of printed material in country
dozens of magazine prints that circulate 1 million copies / week

comics/animation: as economic export

Japanese comics: moving into Taiwan/Korea 30/40 years ago, pirated versions

Reaction against Japanese comics abroad
Cartoonists: quit drawing because of double standard: National Compilation and Translation Institute; gov’t (ie. censorship): letting in Japanese comics, clamping down on Taiwanese comics
Origami Fighters: artists: claimed not influenced by manga: not violent enough, no nudity/sex

South Korea: censorship of Jap comics; Jap cultural products banned from S.K.
1992: interviewed head of ethics commission: how can you censor something that’s not supposed to be here in the first place?
Jap manga: republished by local publishers: anything that identified ~ as Japanese: removed/edited (ie. Japanese –> Korean background)
1994: group campaigning against Japanese comic books; upset: Jap comics have such influence in their country; influence = taking away from Korean market;

Korean comics: hard to see difference between Jap/Korean comic books
characters in Korean comics: softer, more emotional (Westerner wouldn’t pick up on ~)

Hong Kong comic book industry: thriving in ’90s

Japanese comics: impact on SE Asia:
too many people look at negative side of influence
Jap comics: revived comic book industry
US: comic book industry in trouble
influx of Jap comics: helped revive it
modern: everyone drawing everything in same style, same content

Indonesia: reasons why own comics didn’t do well: economics (cheaper to import Jap comics than create own, local comic had very narrow repetoire while Jap comics covered so many stories/characters, Indonesia: social issues that were taboo that couldn’t touch even in comics)

Malaysia/Singapore: not comic book tradition until manga imported, same for animation on television
Lot: made own popular comic in Malaysia: based on own childhood in Malaysian country: keeps traditions alive in own comic books

Sri Lankan comics

Impact of Jap comics throughout Asia

Next: growth, changing status of industries in Asia
new companies
globalization
commercialization (merchandise)

governments: getting involved: to expand markets (not just interested in domestic market)
South Korea: 1994: gov’t: realized most important/profitable cultural export: animation; produced much of America’s animation
gov’t: ’94/’95: pumped a lot of money into animation
Seoul International Comics & Animation Festival ’95
set up Cartoon Network on TV
feature length films
started to expand education in animation/comics
’93/’94: 1 or 2 year technical animation colleges; within 5-7 years: number grown to 150 universities, tech colleges, even 6 high school (full animation/comic art departments)
gov’t: changed status of industry: had many tax breaks

Gila Gila 1978: 1st of humor magazines in Malaysia, then boom followed for these magazines; Gila Gila: top circulated magazine in area (more even than women’s magazines)

Singapore: number of types of comic book publishers
independent companies
companies that obtain rights from outside
publishers with own publication programs/directions to produce original titles (eg. Asiapac Books)
internet publishers

Philippines: 1 of strongest traditions of comics in Asia ’60s/’70s: of 150/160 movie titles published / year, 50% of movies animated
many artists: wanted money, better market: worked in US for DC/Marvel comics

Taiwan: modern industry: in some trouble now; 8 major companies down to 6; staff numbers cut
businessmen: looking for short term gains: so won’t pump money into comic industry
comic artists: not making deadlines, slowing down production

India: moving up in industry: Branson (Virgin): helped Indians start up lines of comics (eg. uses Indian characters/content; global collaboration between international film makers to find stories; seek talent among all creative fields to help create comic book stories)

worldwide: comics/animation: suffer from lack of good stories (also relates to film arena)

why do companies go into animation?
survival strategies:
not just thinking about comic books
expect to make money from lines of merchandise
exist just to recreate japanese comics or import them directly
also could be: wishes to have characters/stories adapted to film, video games, etc.

comics of Asia: multitude: genres, sizes, &c.
normal size, pocket size: for people to transport (eg. during traffic)

comics: reinvented themselves through Internet
webcomics
use on mobile phones (eg. buy pornographic/racy comic in private)
graphic novel: taken off in last decade, esp. in US
other genres: Korea: educational comics (used to study for exams) [Japanese: become them, eg. economic simplified in comics version]
underground comics

4) more recognition/prestige given to animators/comic artists in Asia

5) role of women
years ago: only in Japan as cartoonists
now: even in Pakistan: popular female artist
images of women: changing as well (past: put into demeaning roles)

in China: 2 golden ages of animation; 2nd: ended in 1988
positive aspect: had time and money to produce whatever needed

ended w/ animation: tadpoles searching for mother frog, watercolor animation
Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_6zK6Y0uUGk
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=t3oAOvfrBf8

Our World Digitized: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Yochai Benkler (B), Cass Sunstein (S), Henry Jenkins (J), [audience (Q)]

S: grade for internet: C-; “brilliant insight & cruelty”
later says: harsh: against realistic ideal;
if you have freedom of choice; can select options liked best, can go home;

B: what is the degree of engagement?
production of common experience: in old mass media: through gov’t/ advertisements –> dependencies
what is an elite? democracy: better now: greater number of people (millions) that can affect agenda w/o dying out

J: digital enclave:
babble hypothesis: are we in danger of excessive fragmentation?

B: most productive tool to map discourse on net: link analysis (who links to whom, what shape does the network take); looking at data: not seeing ‘daily me’ but structured public sphere; shallow network; really what we have: reproduction of mass media: small number of sites being used/looked at;
what we have: google news, social networks, filtering systems, clusters of communities of interests; more fragmented than mass media: yes; better environment to discuss: yes; more communities to obsess: yes; not a utopia, but fragmentation: not imminent

S: group polarization: bring like-minded people together: more in line w/ each other than before meeting in group; Internet operating in this fashion: does not create valid ‘democracy’
linking practices: D/R: cross-linking between each other to high degree: purpose?: to criticize other side
sites cluster, individuals cluster

B: How should we feel about the net as a platform for the public sphere?
practical purposes for politics, for one
What is the arc of culture that is bringing us to the degree of polarization that splits parties (ie. ’94 election) –> NOT the net, alternative cultural models have to exist
how we are in our conversation when we talk politics: we hang out with friends, when w/ people whose views are on other side: might skirt issues; we talk w/ people with whom with agree; arguments: are definition of who we are
we largely cluster & talk w/ each other: say how right we are, how wrong they are, occasionally listen to the other side

S: Jane Jacobs: serendipity of cities: person/building/~ that stuns you: something foreign to your preexisting experience; in cities: surprise of city: will alter you: what you’re interested in, what you care about, your aesthetics, your political views
- if people find someone who agrees with them: find them smarter/more likeable
- judgment: depends on what our norms are

YouTube: exemplification of great American city
negative: how many people keep looking over and over of online media in aversion of ~ candidate
empirical hypothesis: will go online to find information that reinforces own judgments

J: Wikipedia: what is says about civil society & collaborative production of knowledge

S: participation: not as huge as portrayed, but: occurs among everyone
can’t understand Wiki: w/o understanding that everyone has bits of knowledge that others dont’: comes together in aggregation of information/knowledge
best positive: everyone gets a free encyclopedia
for Wiki to work: norms must be in play: to prevent cruelty/lies to destroy enterprise
hierarchical system on top of collaboration that provides a safeguard

B: no disagreement
first few years: info: largely relevant culturally, then permitted
take issue calling it hierarchy: then Wiki gov’t: democratic, through people who volunteer, of people w/ consensus/agreement
Wiki: so good but so imperfect at the same time
human cooperation/collaboration: Wiki says it’s feasible –> so much so: inconceivable
need new model of cooperation: builds over differences even when some people have more sense of trust

S: vandalism: very high
hierarchical administrators: higher in hierarchy, but mainly: have norms, ie. dignity esp for biographies of people

J: models of citizenship, motivation for participation; educational implications?

B: if you think you can affect the agenda, you walk through the world observing things as arguments rather than simply complaints as people who “can’t do anything” –> kibitzing; better than sitting in front of TV & just cursing
young peoples’ use of media: not political? kids: play: practice things they’ll do as adults; play: not just acquisition of skills; kids: growing up looking for things: attitude of seeking
education: if we begin to use affordances of technology to bring into classroom meaningful projects: teach you how to seek information, build networks

S: along certain access: consumers: choose what we want, hope: we’re not just passive recipients of information
citizen v. consumer: for democratic purposes: norms of consumer: differ greatly from those of citizen
Google: culprit for not defining between citizen/consumer

Q: tools that allow exchange of information affect us? how new tools in future will change exchange, in terms of polarization?

S: people hardwired: 1) cluster w/ like minded others, 2) we’re curious
virtue of internet: potential to work against clustering and toward curiosity

B: basic question between tools we adopt & how we change/adapt
also: humans: very plastic: we’re in constant conversation with what we want and what we’ll adopt

Q: cooperation

B: what makes collaboration successful?

Q: of unexpected results: shared communities: as the grow

S: society: need is greater for degree of common experiences

Q: success of Wiki; other Wikimedia: not as successful

S: LostPedia: ex. of where collaborative production will work: because of intense interest: community that has good norms, intense interest; but: what niche is it fulfilling?
q: why would people want to participate in niche information gathering; to trigger norms of collaboration: have to have sense of ‘giving to people’

B: need subcluster of people who are motivated/passionate of subjective news reporting that is not professional: may not tap well into Internet’s much more objectivity

Q: objectivity; potential for highly polarized space; larger environmental issue: in US: D vs R: binary opposition

S: biparty system: does it necessarily ensure polarization? no; w/ environment of multiple parties: mutual action to form gov’t, but majority: think they are better than other parties; in dual party system: some of other side are better than us, we are better than some of them; not winner take all system: total inferiority of the other, not us versus them

B: two-party system: has eliminated left & right and left the middle standing; in US: everyone close to center in terms of the range; squishes together the program instead of greater polarization

Q: in favor of polarization/clusterization

S: empirical work: supports: if likeminded people listen to same people, will be less active in politics; appreciating it: feel more engaged: but pacifying effect
societies: benefit from 1st order diversity & 2nd as well; 1st order: optimal diversity in 1 area: everyone exposed to multiple points of view; 2nd order: diversity across: ie. economics department across universities: society benefits from greater stock of arguments created by polarization

B: ambition that is more substantiative: whether or not you have commitment to the whole

Q: network space vs. real space: small number of people wield huge range of influence: crosses over into the real world: ie. Anonymous

B: new possibility to act maliciously: more scary: should cause us to think of new set of accordances as a bad thing? no.
fear of the freedom of the net –> freedom of the city: still a bit scary

S: some blogs/sites: permeability/networkedness: very destructive to real people

Q: virtual worlds: where we can see people: how it will affect citizentry?

B: “you really feel like you’re in it”; Second Life: trying to see degree how visual perceptions trigger certain responses

follow up Q: real interactions: face-to-face: changed?

S: doesn’t really matter much; no differences yet