gabriellewongavi

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost 10: Wearables (Gabrielle Wong)

In this week’s reading, Crawford discusses the effects of wearables and how the act of purchasing and using a wearable device to get the ability to discover more about the self identity can be experienced as pleasurable and powerful. It also opens up opportunities to join communities as data collected through the wearables can be shared and discussed with others. However, the existence of wearable devices introduces a new set of problems such as data and privacy intrusions. Crawford brings up the point that the full use of our data is always out of sight to users. We do not know when our data is being used, and how it is being used. Our data has a big economic value in the sense that it could be sold to corporations that would find the data valuable when it comes to creating products or targeting marketing efforts to the right target audiences, to which users might not consent to.  

While reading Crawford’s take on the topic of wearables, I found myself relating it to the topic of free labor that was discussed a few weeks ago on the topic of user-generated content. The question I had in mind was: since data collected by wearables are always out of sight to users, and is used for many purposes other than solely generating fitness reports to users, can we then say that users of wearable devices are engaging in free labor? Personally, after having extensively discussed the topic of free labor and user-generated content, I would agree that it is free labor. The users are the ones that are engaging in physical activities and providing extensive, in-depth data of their daily lives through wearable devices; such data is probably sold to relevant companies that it brings value to, which users usually do not consent to. I recall that I used to have a fitness wearable device myself that I bought off Shopee during a period where I was highly motivated to be physically active. The wearable device required me to download an application on my phone if I wanted a more in-depth report on my physical activities, which I did download, and I assume that most users of wearable devices will also do the same, since this is probably the reason why people even buy wearable devices in the first place. However, I realized that my advertisements on Instagram and Facebook started to become highly specific – most of them were fitness related, such as yoga mats or other types of devices related to fitness. I immediately attributed this to the wearable device I was wearing, and it spooked me out because I knew that I did not consent to my data being shared, but it was somehow shared anyway, and made its way into the algorithms for my advertisements. Therefore, I really agree with Crawford’s points regarding data privacy and intrusion, and more awareness should be shed on how our data could be potentially used as free labor.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost 9: Intimacy (Gabrielle Wong)

In the article by Hobbs, Owen, and Gerber, they look at the extent to which mobile dating applications have changed the solidity and security that was once provided by life-long relationships. They used the term ‘liquify’ to describe the effects of dating applications , and assert that the experiences that these dating applications provide to users have caused a digital transformation of intimacy. For example, individuals are now engaging in strategic performances in the pursuit of love, sex, and intimacy in their lives. The authors brought up the point that the affordances and mechanics of mobile dating applications have turned dating into a ‘game’, where users feel less stressed about dating and invest less time and emotions.

I personally agree with the authors. One of the most well-known and used dating applications, Tinder, introduced a new perspective to dating and looking for potential partners with their swipe function. The application was designed to give users a fun experience when looking for potential romantic matches, thus changing their perspectives to a casual approach when approaching the topic of dating. The authors also brought up another point regarding the digital transformation of intimacy, to which they suggest that the security provided by romantic relationships have changed due to the fact that dating applications exist. This is exceptionally true. I personally witness how whenever a friend in my social circle ends a relationship, the first few things people would say would be to ‘go on Tinder and find someone new’. Relationships no longer have that security as it used to before dating applications existed as individuals today know that they can always return to a ‘marketplace’ of potential candidates. Thus, romance and courtship as suggested by the authors have been turned into a type of entertainment where individuals date with this mindset, which demonstrates how dating applications are facilitating and ‘liquifying’ the solidity and security of romance and relationships. Therefore, I agree with the authors that the traditional ideas of commitment and notions of romantic love have been transformed by digitalization of intimacy, which many might not realize as dating applications have become such a norm in our lives.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost 8: Play (Gabrielle Wong)

In this week’s reading, Pelletier discusses how games can be considered to be educational. There are two main reasons for this – the interactivity of games is said to allow greater agency, and the inherent pleasures that comes with gameplay are linked to increased motivation to learn. The article then suggests that the way games are used as learning technologies relates to wider social interests. Using the notion of interpassivity, the article argues that activity and passivity in gameplay can be seen as mutually constitutive instead of being placed in opposition to one another. The interactivity of gameplay allows us to be passive while being active through another – an example given was pressing buttons that translates into in-game actions. Through interpassivity, we can also be active while being passive through another, such as fulfilling the demands of the game. Hence, this notion of interpassivity can be used to describe and demonstrate the process in which we gain a sense of self through relations with others.

The argument that the article is making where activity and passivity in gameplay can be seen as mutually constitutive is extremely valid. This could also be the reason why education and gameplay could go along together – the students could be passive in the context of receiving and following instructions, but they are active in terms of internalizing the information and making decisions. One personal example that I can think of would be when I am playing The Sims, which was also mentioned in the article. When I am playing Sims 4, I do think that I am quite ‘active’ in terms of always thinking of the best possible way for my Sims avatar to live the most lavish and fulfilling life in the game, which gives me pleasure when I manage to do so or gain rewards in the process, as I associate myself with the avatar, and feel a sense of achievement for myself when my avatar makes achievements as well.  However, at the same time, I am being constrained by some of the quests in the game, whereby the game makes me think that I have to complete it in order to maximise the rewards I can get, to which I follow as a passive player. Hence, when carrying this concept over to education and gameplay, this notion of interpassivity could help greatly in pushing students to the right direction of learning via instructions and set goals that constrain them to the content that they have to learn, while allowing them to consciously make their own decisions in order to reinforce and reflect on their learning.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost 7: Consumption

In this week’s reading, the authors introduced the concept of cultural field and cultural capital; discussing the relationship between our practices and the contexts in which those practices occur. These contexts produce and transform attitudes or practices as cultural fields. Cultural fields are not just made up of institutions and rules, but of the interactions between these institutions, rules and practices as well. The authors also introduced and discussed the term ‘cultural capital’, which was defined to function as a social relation within an economy of practices. It can also be extended to material objects such as goods that present themselves as ‘worthy of being sought after’, or attractive in a particular social formation.

I can see how corporations constantly apply this to increase profits and brand value. For example, insurance companies in Singapore often incorporate family themes in their advertisements to invoke emotions within audiences. I recall watching various advertisements with a “We’re here for you and your family” message, which supposedly attracts audiences as the company associates itself with values that consumers agree with, such as filial piety. This ‘personalises’ their company – by showing they care about their consumers’ wellbeing and welfare, they portray themselves as more than just a corporation out to make profits off consumers. This gives or increases the positive capital associated with it, increasing the attractiveness of their image, and ultimately increasing or maintaining their share of the market. Therefore, we can see here how the capital acts as a social relation within this system of exchange between the corporation and the consumer.  

However, the authors also mention how corporations designating themselves as a family-orientated company might be a double-edged sword as it could constitute negative capital, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The authors attribute this to our ever-increasing globalised economy, in which the act of designating themselves as a family-orientated company could connote insularity or a lack of ambition. Personally, I belong to the group that shares this mindset. Whenever I see advertisements especially short films touching on the subject of family, I am always wary of it turning out to be an advertisement. When it does, I do feel a little ‘offended’ that I allowed it to invoke emotions in me, only for it to turn out as another profit-making scheme. As audiences are more active now, which is a result of globalisation, I reckon that many probably share the same sentiments that I do. I also see how this strategy might be seen as a lack of ambition, as companies might be seen as taking the ‘easy way out’ in trying to increase the attractiveness of their brand – since this strategy has been proven to catch the audiences’ attention. Consumers might appreciate it better if corporations think of something new or novel instead of constantly returning to the same strategy to appeal to them. In general, the reading has opened up my understanding of how corporations capitalise on cultural capital to their own advantage, and how the perception or consequence of it from the consumers’ eyes extends from the social and cultural field that it occurs in.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost #6: Sharing Economy (Gabrielle Wong)

In this week’s reading, Ravenelle brings to attention the concept of the sharing economy, which is a catchall term used for firms and businesses that connect people for the purposes of distributing, sharing, and reusing goods and services. Examples mentioned include Airbnb and Uber. It has many pros to it, such as utilizing underused resources. Ravenelle explored many different aspects of the sharing economy, with one particularly mentioning that the sharing economy claims to make trust easier because electronic trails are ‘supposed to make it easier to know everyone’. For example, digital trails are difficult to get rid of; according to week 6’s learning of user-generated content, we can conclude that it is difficult to have true ownership over content that we put up on the Internet. With this in mind, the sharing economy supposedly raises the level of trust, especially during transactions with consumers as sharing economy services often link through social media accounts for verification, or require users to upload personal information about themselves.

However, I disagree to a certain extent on this. Although the digitalisation of transactions could possibly prolong the longevity of information, it could go the other way as well - it could also be easy for people to mask their identity. Today, it is easy to hide behind a screen and anonymously make purchases or sell items. Even though some sites require a confirmation of identity such as the linking of social media sites, there is still a loophole as it is always easy to create a fake social media account. In general, it is always easy to mask identities online, and this opens up many opportunities for scams and frauds. I personally recall this unpleasant experience I once had on Carousell where people were renting out luxury bags. I wanted to rent one for a production shoot, and I recall that the seller had a ‘verified’ status on his account, complete with his name and phone number. However, since I was extra wary of potentially getting scammed due to the huge amount of expenditure involved, I did a few rounds of background research, and pretended to be another buyer to see if the information he was feeding me was consistent; only to find out that he gives out multiple numbers to different buyers, and he had multiple accounts on Carousell as well to avoid having negative reviews appear on his active profile. Hence, in this case, we can see how even though he had been marked as trustable via his ‘verified’ profile, he was not trustable at all, and could easily mask his identity, taking advantage of the supposed ‘pros’ that the sharing economy brings.  Therefore, instead of bringing an increased level of trust to the table, the sharing economy has instead caused more people to be wary, and introduces new threats such as digital anonymity and fraud, and we still very much need to be careful when engaging in its services.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost #5: User Generated Content (Gabrielle Wong)

In this week’s reading, the term ‘participatory culture’ was introduced – this term is used for designating the involvement of users and consumers in the creation of culture and content. Fuchs investigates how other scholars have attempted to define participatory culture, and points out how many scholars’ definitions of it indicate that it is a positive aspect of a democratic society. In other words, when users and audiences are enabled to produce culture and content, culture and society become more democratic. Social media was mentioned to have many positive aspects as it is ‘spreadable media’; its nature constantly involves audiences that ‘actively shape media flows’ by the sharing, remixing, reusing and adaptation of content that could drive the economy. Consumers become an integral part of a commodity’s success as they could help drive brands to success and earn profits.

Fuchs has a critical viewpoint as he disagrees that participatory culture is a positive aspect of a democratic society. He posits that while social media gives people a platform to be creative with their content, digital labor is taking place as these commodities take user-generated content and use it to their own benefit, to which I agree with. I used to intern at a marketing agency. Part of my job scope entailed searching for user-generated content to post on my client’s social media handles. The client was a well-known group that had a few hotels under their brand, and I would be tasked to source on Instagram everyday for pictures taken in attractive places near the hotels, ask for permission to repost, and post it on the client’s social media profiles coupled with a caption that said “Come visit Singapore and stay with us! This location is only XXX distance away from our hotel”. This is an example of how a brand could potentially generate profit and increase awareness at the expense of labour of users due to participatory culture.

In Fuchs’ argument, he also takes into consideration as to whether we can call this form of participatory on social media ‘digital labour’ or exploitation if users enjoy doing it. I think that this is a valid concern – there could be some sort of intangible benefit offered to users. In the case of my example, many people were more than happy to give permission to repost because the thought of having a social media business account with more than 10k followers reusing their content could be flattering. However, Fuchs asserts that it is still exploitation; he defines it as ‘degree of unpaid labour from which companies benefit at the expense of labour’. I wholeheartedly agree with this. There are many more examples where companies capitalize on user-generated content for their benefit through ‘competitions’ or giveaways where users do work for them for free. Hence, Fuchs has brought about a valid point on how participatory culture could have great effect in reality such as the economy, and how we, as users, should be more thoughtful in the ways we view our participation online.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost #4: Media Industries (Gabrielle Wong)

In the reading by Horkheimer and Adorno, it is argued that the culture industry does much more than providing entertainment; they are actually controlling the way we think and act. As we constantly consume content from the culture industry, we are actually vulnerable to the messages they send and ingrain in us. The authors also assert the culture industry uses a ‘production-line mentality’ in producing cultural products. For example, there are many variations of films in the market to cater to the taste of many different people, but in fact, they are all variations of the same thing. Through these forms of ‘art’, entertainment, and media, which were mentioned to be profit-motivated, the audiences are distracted and manipulated as we effortlessly digest content. They also emphasize how the public holds a mentality that is passive and favors the system of the culture industry. Therefore, the culture industry that produces content consumed by the mass media holds power over audiences as they shape and condition the way audiences think and experience reality. 

I personally think that the authors’ stances are valid and applicable in the past before digital media came about. Decades ago when only a few had the chance to be content creators, and when the sharing of content across physical distance was limited, mass audiences could only turn to content by the culture industry to fulfill their entertainment needs. For example, radio and television were once huge sources of entertainment that many turned to. The authors mentioned how such forms of entertainment had no mechanism of reply, and democratically made everyone into listeners so that audiences would be exposed in authoritarian fashion to the same programs put out by different channels and stations. Hence, in such an era where audiences mainly seeked entertainment from these traditional forms of media, the arguments that the authors brought up were extremely valid as I can definitely see how the culture industry had power over audiences.

However, audiences today are more active, and constantly critique the information and content that they consume. With the existence of digital media, audiences are able to share their nuances with one another, hence the emergence of phenomena such as cancel culture; in which large masses of people unite via virtually and take action against something due to a shared belief. One example would be how Singaporeans often critique Mediacorp shows – I remember that a friend once tweeted that the Channel 5 shows airing lately were bad; even though they might have watched it to come to that conclusion, they are still very much active in deciding what content and messages they want to adopt. That made me critique and question the content of the show as well. Therefore, in contrast to the authors’ argument, I disagree with them here– we cannot really say that the culture industry holds all the power over audiences today, as we have transited from a passive audience to an active audience, which is enabled by digital media.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost #3: Mobile Media (Gabrielle Wong)

The reading by Ito, Okabe and Anderson (2017) addressed the impact of technology in our lives, and how it has affected our communication and perception of our surroundings – specifically in the public sphere, and how we use digital devices to bring a taste of our domestic space out into public infrastructure. To further illustrate this, the reading introduced the concepts of cocooning, camping and footprinting in public spaces; in which were various ways whereby people have made use of the presence of technology such as mobile phones to create ‘personalization’ or ‘privatisation’ of public spaces.

I largely agree with the reading. Personally, I am a huge fan of making use of my mobile phone to get away from awkward situations. For example, when I spot an acquaintance from far, I take advantage of the fact that I can use the mobile phone as an excuse to ‘ignore’ everything else that is happening in the real world, including the person that I want to avoid interaction with. This illustrates how digital devices and technology enabled us to create a ‘cocoon’ for ourselves or the privatisation of public spaces, which was brought up in the reading. Without the existence of mobile devices, it could be considered rude behavior if I chose to not acknowledge the acquaintance. Therefore, the fact that this act of avoidance can be justified because we are preoccupied with our mobile phones shows how technology has introduced a whole new concept of how we are interacting, and can interact with the real world. 

The authors of the reading also assert that digital devices not only change the way we communicate and interact in the public space, but also make decisions for us as these technosocial modes of engaging with urban spaces ‘rely on a stabilization of technology’. They cited how cards were used to mediate and personalize our relationships to various establishments, such as the use of stamp cards to form a relationship between a loyal customer and a business establishment. This brings me to recall how I used to frequent Boost because of their membership card that allowed me to collect points with every purchase; once I hit a certain amount of points, I could redeem a free drink. The very fact that I possess the card has played a huge role when it came to deciding what beverage I felt like drinking that day. Hence, this demonstrates how technology has done more than simply providing us with convenience – it has completely changed our perception of both our domestic and public space, as well as influenced how we interact within these spaces.

[gabriellewongavi]

Blogpost #2: Gabrielle Wong

Spigel (2015) talks about the impact of television on our everyday lives; mainly touching on how television holds great influence over the social construction of both the public and private sphere. She also examines the role that the television plays within our private space, specifically our places of habitation such as our homes. Spigel argues that the role of television goes beyond acting as a mere form of media outlet and entertainment as it strongly influences our domestic space, in particular the time and space in our households. For instance, the reading highlights how families used the television to keep their family together by either setting a period of time to watch television together, or placing it in a central location to allow the family to gather. 

I definitely agree with Spigel’s arguments, as drawing from my personal experiences after contemplating on her points, I can now see how television has determined the time and space in my household. When I was in secondary school, my family started to eat dinner at 7PM because of this specific drama that was airing on one of the channels at the same time; we wanted to enjoy it while having our dinner, which was previously around 6:45PM. Although the difference in time is only a mere 15 minutes, the change in routine is still significant as it is brought about by television and the media. Another example would be how the space in the household with the television, such as the living room, will always be the place where family and guests gather or enjoy activities together. When guests come over, they naturally gravitate towards the couch in front of the television as it symbolises the space that people come together, leading to how matters of importance such as family discussions are also held in the same space where the television stands. This further reinstates Spigel’s point that the television is a symbolic object that greatly affects the social construction of not only our private sphere, but also the public sphere, where we carry over the same importance of the television to our interactions in public such as paying attention to announcements on screens.

However, with the emergence of other digital devices and technological advancements such as the mobile phones and streaming websites like Netflix, Spigel’s argument is weakened as the television no longer holds such an important role in the social construction of our everyday realities. People turn to their mobile phones for instant news updates instead of gathering with their family to catch it at a certain timing, and family discussions have transited into online chats instead. However, despite this, I think that the main gist of Spigel’s view towards media and mediatization still stands as we can definitely apply the concept of the role of the television as decision-makers in our lives to the other mediatized routines and media devices that we have today, such as our mobile phones and laptops.

Spigel, L. (2015). TV and the Spaces of Everyday Life. Mediated Geographies and Geographies of Media (pp. 39-48). Springer, Dordrecht.

[gabriellewongavi]

#1: Gabrielle Wong

The term ‘mediatization’ was introduced in Chapter 2 of The Mediated Construction of Reality by authors Couldry and Hepp (2017), in which they suggest that our social world is constructed by acts and practices of communication fundamentally interwoven with media. The very process of media’s interweaving in the social world as our everyday reality is referred to as mediatization. Couldry and Hepp further argue that we cannot look at our social world through a divisive lens; where communication acts and practices such as face-to-face communication are separate from the world that is presented to us via media. Through the reading, we can conclude that face-to-face communication is not enough, nor is it fundamental enough to describe the communication practices and acts that have constructed our social world to what it is today. Our usage and interaction with media alters this communication and introduces a whole new meaning to communication amongst subjects in our social world today.

I personally agree with Couldry and Hepp’s stance on how our daily communication is continuously interwoven with media-related practices. For example, our interaction with media and technology begins even before the day begins, as notifications and messages stream in while we’re asleep – which is the first thing that we see in the morning when we reach for our phones. Personally, I start my day by scrolling through my phone and reading all the messages and notifications that I’ve missed while I was sleeping; this proves the authors’ stance on how my interactions with the social world is facilitated via media-related practices. 

I also find Couldry and Hepp’s point on mediatization to be extremely true – our everyday reality is indeed constantly interwoven with media. Today, not owning a mobile phone would invoke more questions and seem more ‘out of the norm’ as compared to owning one. ‘Norms’ such as these in our everyday reality were constructed out of our interaction with the media. Another real-life personal example to demonstrate the role of media in our lives and communication would be how it has become a norm to exchange social media handles when we want to leave a form of contact for strangers and acquaintances that we come across. This is due to the increasing usage of social media sites such as Instagram in our daily lives. It has become embedded in our lives and become part of our identity as we carefully curate content and posts that we put up in our personal social media profiles, portraying and choosing a version of ourselves that we want people to see, thus relating back to the process of social construction and mediatization. It is interesting to see how media is so much more than just a form of entertainment; the reading has opened up our perspectives of the media as it gets us to reconsider the extent of its role in our lives, as well as how it has shaped and moulded our identities individually and as a community.