As I progressed through the reader, it became clearer that this concept of “identity” not merely within the context of the media but indeed through its greater use within society, was in fact nothing more than a label just like those discussed within week nine’s topic of “signs and meaning” – just that these were given a more personalised “feel” through the herd-mentality of the members of each demographic.
Another important degree of difference that is introduced by During’s article is that unlike the objects and other such paraphernalia discussed within Schirato and Yell’s reading on semiotics, humans – through the labelling applied by the society with which they partake – are able to simultaneously belong to many demographics be it through willing subscription or forceful application, a policy that holds true even in the smaller “society” of our university where there are groups (or self-proclaimed “societies”) that allow unwitting students to subscribe to many of them, even when they have clashing ideologies.

One of the greatest issues regarding identity in the context through which it is discussed in the reader is its ability to remove a person’s individuality as it stops a person from being referred to as “him” or “her” and instead changes their title to “one of them”.
While this opinion may be widely spread, it is clear when viewed in conjunction with the previous point (that each individual may be part of many communities), it is clear that an individual’s identity is not formed through the groups with which they’re involved, but rather, the ones in which they aren’t involved and this composition in comparison to that of others, i.e. the degrees of separation between each person’s ‘portfolio’ of subscriptions.

z3290961

References

During, S. “Debating Identity” in Cultural Studies. Routledge, 2005, 145-152

Now enough of the micro – it’s time to delve beneath the surface of the reading and into its core: while most of Fairclough’s article seems quite ‘straightforward’ to most observational members of society and its surrounding contributive components (such as politics and media) – i.e. it didn’t really manage to instil me with knowledge that I didn’t already have either from the lecture or other past experiences – it did provide me with a new manner of understanding the concept of discourse and how the language that forms the basis of discourse can be found far beyond “spoken or written language use” to include other types of “semiotic behaviour” such as visual and body language, something which Fairclough believes he has “extended” into discourse analysis himself and which “many linguists” overlook.

Having concluded the reading, the thing that was best able to impress me was just how many of the concepts ‘tie-in’ with one another through the concept of “discourse”, particularly as discourse – through its process of observation and subsequent debate of concepts – is not just the parent, but indeed the manner of birth for many other media concepts which are seen as ‘significant’ in “everyday life” by society.
z3290961

References

Fairclough, Nigel. “Critical Analysis of Media Discourse” in Media Discourse. London, Arnold, 1995, 53-74

I feel compelled to mention this progress in the course as this reader has subsequently come out in an entirely different way in comparison to those previously, that is, it has stuck to one medium – written text – and with great depth, analysed it using the systems and concepts which are introduced to the audience at the beginning.
Schirato and Yell make clear just how great a part the semiotic system plays in an audience’s interpretation of the medium because, as is illustrated by their analysis of Saussure’s concepts, “meanings [are] not arbitrary” but rather, are part of an ideological process which means that at least part of the information is “embedded” within the sign allowing only so much room for there to be a difference in understanding by different audience members.
This can be further emphasised through an author’s use of emotive language, such as that which can be found in the provided article by P.P. McGuiness: while the article presents itself as a “sensible discussion” that attempts to clarify many things about the “invasion” of Australia by Europeans, it can be seen to be quite bias even early in the piece where it attempts to refute that Australia was ever “invaded” by expressing conservative views likening supporters of this view the “worst of trade unions” and Marxists.

McGuiness’ view of this historical event and whether Australia was “invaded” or “colonised” can quite quickly be overviewed with Saussure’s concept of “binaries” where a signifier derives its value through the degrees of separation between itself, and other such signifiers.

Having earlier made the point that this article does not make much mention of technology, I must add that this reader can in many ways be seen as a ‘prequel’ to earlier ones, particularly week five’s reading on “Semapedia” – what is essentially a digital version of these ‘semiotic systems’ discussed in the reader as it allows a barcode (the signifier) to easily convey a great deal of information (the signified) to the express audience.

z3290961

References

Schirato, T and Yell, S. “Signs and Meaning” in Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 2000, 18-33

Another aspect that I believe Couldry downplayed excessively was the role that technology played in further evolving the narcissism that has driven the blurring of lines between creators and producers (a concept that has been discussed in depth in the last two weeks’ worth of readings) because even at the time of the article’s publishing (2005), social networking and blogging websites were booming in popularity as well as accessibility thus, providing all “ordinary people” the ability to broadcast their message (“perform”) and, in some instances, the opportunity to reach the status of a “real star”, that is the opportunity to be aired on television, such as the YouTube “viral video” creators that are focused upon by YouTube compilation TV shows such as Friday Night Download.
This opportunity in turn provokes many others into performing copycat stunts in the hope of obtaining the same fame hence ‘feeding’ the second “process” that forms the catalyst for audience evolution: will to perform.

I must make mention that although Couldry is actually reproducing the work of Abercrombie and Longhurst for much of the article (including the parts against which I argue), thus disassociating himself from the opinions, at no stage does he object to any of them like he does other quotations in the article.

z3290961

References

Couldry, Nick. “The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon” in Gillespie, Marie. Ed. Media Audiences. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2005, 184-196 & 210-220

Castells’ “hypothesis” for the “historical superiority” of “vertical-hierarchical organisations over networks” is that past societies lacked the necessary technology to create such thoroughly-informing networks “efficiently”; because of this, they chose instead to operate on the “one-way” flow of information allowing ‘monolithic’ media outlets to be their sole information-provider as the many advantages of network-styled communications weren’t enough to justify the great inefficiency that they would fall victim to without aid from today’s technology.
This is clearly true as we now fully embrace this great ability to connect to a node and become part of the “global network” that Castells discusses, primarily because we’re able to do so like never before.

One of the parts of Castells’ text which stood out to me more than any other was his down-playing of the idea that this evolution of distribution systems (from broadcast-based to network-based) had truly shaken the key sources of power; while he does concede that “power is redefined [through this evolution]”, he does not illustrate the dramatic difference which has been undertaken by many sources of information such as advertising which, as was mentioned in last week’s reader, is now seen as less-reliable as people have been granted the ability to cross-check potentially-misleading claims.
It is clear that those who hold control over information, hold great control over their “audience” – one of the key idea’s behind George Orwell’s 1984 which states that “Knowledge is Power” – and now that all members of society are able to contribute to informational networks, power has been equally distributed among everyone.

z3290961

References

Castells, M. Excerpts from “InformationalismNetworks and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint” from The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 3-7 & 36-45

Before actually beginning, I must make mention of the article’s heavy referencing of advertising among other forms of business, so great was this presence of such terminology in fact that I was forced to check at numerous instances, that I hadn’t accidentally taken my friend’s commerce notes.

Although the article’s beginning is quite ambiguous with Nightingale’s initial definition of convergence seemingly describing a multimedia device (“a series of intersections between different media systems”), yet it is directly followed by a contradicting quote from Jones that such a concept “is not to be found [in such a device]”, Nightingale later clarifies why this is, not merely by giving the reader a better understanding of the word convergence, but in fact by presenting multiple other opposing perspectives on the topic (such as that of Evans, Wurster and Fortunati) which tell the reader that Nightingale is in no way condoning the arguments, she is merely presenting them.

I believe that the main statement that Nightingale wishes to express through her article (particularly demonstrated by the number of predictive theories presented) is that there is “a [great] degree of uncertainty about the future of traditional media and how it should be re-shaped”, and thus, we must consider all aspects from all angles; a great deal of this uncertainty is derived from the unpredictable nature of technological advances, an example of this that can be found in the text is the unexpected arrival of broadband internet (in particular the low-cost, publically available version) which change many mediums permanently (such as advertising which is now trusted less by the public due to the wide availability of free information disproving the statements made by the vendor).

z3290961

References

Nightengale, Virginia. “New Media Worlds? Challenges for Convergence” From Nightengale, Virginia and Tim Dwyer New Media Worlds: Challenges for Convergence. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2007, 19-36

Having finished my rant (which I apologise for), I must add that I do think that the points that are made by Völker’s artice are valid, in particular the statement that this new era of “mobile technologies” – those which are not bound or “fixed” to “certain places”, not limited in access to the inside of a monitor’s frame – have, in their integration into “everyday life”, become “intertwined with physical places” not with the purpose of “depriving” or “superseding” it (as was discussed in last week’s reader regarding “doubling of place”) but rather, with the goal of enhancing the “authentic reality” – as if they were “our extended nervous systems”.
Völker goes further in this article to discuss just how impossible it is for reality to be “simulated” by “virtual space” and, using a better argument than the usual “because seeing something on a screen isn’t the same as seeing it in real life”, she explains that it isn’t possible because reality is not, as many people believe, a “two-dimensional and calculable entity”.

z3290961

References
Völker, Clara. “Mobile Media and Space” – From Goggin and Hjorth, Mobile Media 2007. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2007, 135-142.

Although I hadn’t previously contemplated Paddy Scannell’s concept of “double reality” – the theory that the subjects of a broadcast appear in two places simultaneously – it does seem a strangely simple concept; from this base concept with which everyone agrees however, it does develop into a more conflicted subject with the many featured authors arguing over what should be including in the list of ‘doubling mediums’: should it remain – as Scannell originally proposed – the two main broadcasting mediums, radio and television, or, as Moores suggests (and not argues), should it extend to include “general… electronic media… such as the telephone and internet” they too, after all produce the same “experiences of simultaneity, liveness and immediacy in what have been termed ‘non-localised’… spaces and encounters”.
I think that it’s quite clear that telephony (particularly mobile) and internet use do greatly allow for doubling of place, using the example from the reader, the girl that is having a private argument with her boyfriend whilst riding on a public train is not merely permeating the barrier between the locations, but she is in fact allowing some of the private setting from which her boyfriend is speaking to ‘seep’ through the phone thus further re-enforcing the idea of ‘portable domestication’ from a few weeks ago.

Another major argument that can be seen in the reader is the question of the point at which physical places become ‘obsolete’, an argument that Meyrowitz pushes because he believes that “a telephone or computer in a ghetto… is potentially as effective as a telephone or computer in a corporate suite”.
This point is further argued by Urry who poses the question “given such a capacity for presencing at a distance, why is it that people continue to feel the need for corporeal travel in order to be with others in physical places?” – a point with which I strongly disagree and am in fact bewildered that anyone could possibly believe that speaking to someone in a “virtual space” is equivalent to meeting them in – to borrow one of their rather depressing terms – “RL” (Real Life).

z3290961

References
Moores, Shaun “The Doubling of Place: Electronic Media, Time-Space Arrangements and Social Relationships” In Couldry & McCarthy. MediaSpace: Place, Scale and Culture in A Media Age. Routledge, 21-37.

With that comment out of the way, time to discuss the article in a scholarly fashion:
Hartley discusses many things in this article, ranging from the way media is consumed (what was “centripetal” – all people were led to the “city centre” for information – is now “centrifugal” – where the media “radiates outwards” to the public), to the truthfulness of contemporary media (which may “digitally enhanced [with ease]”), to the intertwining of time and the media:
Elaborating on the issue that Scott raised in the lecture, Hartley makes a key point of demonstrating just how much “time and news are bound up in each other” sighting an occasion in 1993 where the British  TV network, ITV, became the subject of parliamentary debates and even a national inquiry by the Independent Television Commission (ITC) for having merely modified their regular airing schedule, moving the “News at Ten” to an earlier slot to make room for prime-time movies.

After using this demonstration to establish the dependence that many have on media forms, in particular, our dependence that it remains the same; this is conflicted with the fact that Hartley points out that media frequencies have “clearly shown a consistent tendency to drift upwards”, to use his example, the earliest form of media that is known to us is the ruins: “the lowest-frequency of all forms of public address”; from there, mediums with higher frequencies have continuously been introduced, ranging from low frequency mediums that last centuries (such as buildings) to mid-frequency mediums that last years (such as most books), to high frequency mediums that last hours (such as regular new updates on TV). The latter of those mediums, has even been outdone by the instantaneous medium that is the internet, this became particularly noticeable during the publication of the Starr Report when there was a “spectacle of CNN cameras pointing to a computer screen while the reporter scrolled down pages of internet text… as though the form of journalism that prided itself on high frequency was reduced to the status of mere servant”; while it may seem that nothing can beat instantaneous media in terms of frequency, Hartley points out that pre-event news such as briefings or information leaks, can keep the public informed, “even before the event occurs” albeit with the risk of inaccuracy.
Perhaps what Hartley is suggesting is that, we don’t rely on media to remain the same, per say, but rather, we rely on it to change gradually.

z3290961

References:
Hartley, John. “The Frequencies of Public Writing: Tomb, Tome, and Time as Technologies of the Public” In Jenkins & Thorburn. Democracy of New Media. MIT Press, 247-269.

After giving it a bit of thought, the reasoning behind these 3 points came to light and the conclusions I drew are as follows:

1) outlined in this article is the manner in which the term ‘domestication’ can be used to describe more than just house-training pets: Silverstone introduces it as “something human beings did to … secure their everyday lives. Wild animals then, wild technologies now” – by “taming” what could potentially “cause threats”, we make our lives more comfortable. To be more specific, in this context it is the process whereby “naked …machines and services” mass produced in the greater world, are transformed into products that may be kept in the home, not merely co-existing comfortably with the household residents, but indeed, bettering their lives: “[starting as] wild technologies… [they’re] brought within the fold [and, thus] become sources of power and sustenance”.
Silverstone rather ironically points out that the process of domestication came about because households wanted to avoid great deals of change – “domestication: …It’s [the] neutralisation of the potential for real change” – so rather than resist the science and technological advances that were being made at such a great rate that “they were becoming laws unto themselves” and thus hinder the advancement of society, the public instead decided to “repackage” the technology and introduce it to the home, hence, undertaking change but in a far more subtle way: “Domestication… can be seen as a way of absorbing such threats [of change]”.

2) As aforementioned, another point that struck me in Silverstone’s article was the way in which the notion of privacy within one’s home has diminished: while a person used to leave what was considered the “public domain” as soon as they entered the comfort and security of their home, they now remain constantly connected using a spectrum of technologies (including the internet and mobile telephony) leaving the lines that separate one’s public space from their private space blurred. Silverstone wrote of the comfort that people feel within their home and which they wish to maintain even when they aren’t home and this, he believed, was the reasoning behind such communicative technologies being so popular: “the home is a reflection of self… that attaches to the keypad of a mobile phone… as a technological extension of self… which means you’re never disconnected”.
Having given it much thought, I agree entirely with him in saying that “the boundaries around the household are breaking down… distinctions between public and private spaces… are losing their force and significance. Public or private: …who cares?”

3) The third and final observation that I wanted to mention in this posting was Silverstone’s heavy (but not excessive) use of two terms that I thought truly summed up domestication through their meaning: empirical & dialectic; I believe that the use of the word empirical summarises the way that most of the technology widely domesticated in recent times has been used in ways that one could not have foreseen, that is, the way that each household integrates a technology for their own use can be very different to that of another household and, thus, future uses of technologies may not be theorised, but merely witnessed in practice.
The other word which receives noticeable use by Silverstone is dialectic which to me implies that domestication is quite a forced process within which much debate exists; the key area that is touched explicitly upon by Silverstone is the commodification stage of domestication which many believe to be a straightforward process: “[it won’t ever be an] uncomplicated, linear [process] without its own contradictions” and due to the fact that newer technologies are relentlessly being introduced, this dialect will not remain “static” or “inert” but rather, “will be in a constant dialect of change… that is unending”.

z3290961

References:

Silverstone, Roger. “Domesticating Domestication. Reflections on Life of a Concept.” In Berker, Thomas, et al, eds. Domestication of Media and Technology. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press, 2006, 31-58.