skellytan17 - Tumblr blog

[skellytan17]

Self-tracking (Kelly Tan)

In this week’s reading, Crawford et al.(2015) highlighted how meaningfulness of self-tracking data is determined by collective responsibility rather than individual involvement with users being unaware that there is an increasing enmeshment of personal data with larger networks. By bringing in the weighing scale as a historical example, it underscores how the connections between digital information, health and self- improvements are also being mirrored today, reflecting the dynamic interwovenness of information, consent and privacy. They also posited that there nuances to autonomy, privacy and consent as the body is monitored, recorded and made meaningful through the algorithms of the device which involves corporations and other third party mechanisms. It serves as a ‘biopolitical public domain’, designed to normalise individual data profiles within larger patterns and influence individual choices and preferences in ways that would conform the trends. And while there is a strong rhetoric of participation and inclusion, users will never fully know how reliable the systems are regarding algorithms, outputs and uses of personal data. Users of wearables are not informed about the cultural and scientific concepts that derive their standards, and are categorised based on data which sources or references are unknown. The increasing emphasis on the measured self has thus, brought with it the importance of being profit-driven and standard-making exercises, with commercial purposes of companies to develop products which are targeted towards the users’ needs.

With the omnipresence of technology, healthcare had also become increasing personalised and even participatory, hence, I do agree with the reading that besides the health outcomes, there are other aspects which may be unknowingly compromised. There has been an increase in self-tracking applications such as Clue which tracks the monthly period, glucosebuddy as well as the Health application in the iPhone. Mobile devices provide the convenience in collecting data anywhere and anytime which can be transmitted automatically to medical professionals which seems to offer an unprecedented opportunity on the part of public health authorities to track and discipline people’s health and lifestyle behaviours which includes healthy citizens with the interest for prevention. While surveillance has traditionally been thought to be imposed by a higher authority, self-tracking gives rise to even more complex forms of monitoring, blurring the lines between private and public surveillance (Sharon, 2017). The ability to form a community and invite peers to participate in monitoring practices via the sharing of personal information on social media and other digital platforms also give rise to the idea of the “gamification” of self-tracking for health on these platforms, allowing users to compare data, hence promoting increased scrutiny. With the proliferation of self-tracking mechanisms, it can also lead to the rise of body image issues in which skewed standards of health and fitness are displayed or prompted by algorithms which might impact women differently in their self-esteem. When women compare themselves with others using the application, they decide what is their ideal body type which can also be influenced by algorithms in the self-tracking application which may promote certain actions to be taken in order to attain the “best version” or “ideal” body. These standards hence, become normalised and no one becomes aware of it but yet, they become increasingly focused on the rules set by the system which makes them govern their weight.

Credits: 

Sharon, T. Self-Tracking for Health and the Quantified Self: Re-Articulating Autonomy, Solidarity, and Authenticity in an Age of Personalized Healthcare. Philos. Technol. 30, 93–121 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0215-5

[skellytan17]

Liquid Love (Kelly Tan)

In “Liquid love?: Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy”, Hobbs, Owen and Gerber (2017) conducted a study to highlight users’ perceptions on the impact of dating apps on social constructions and ideals, such as commitments to monogamy and long-term relationships. This is in conjunction with the concept of “liquid love” by Bauman (2003) who posits that “life-long monogamous partnerships are being eroded by the proliferation of extensive ‘networks’ of romantic possibility”. The study undermines this concept by showing that dating apps are instead, seen as “welcome intermediaries” in the pursuit of friendly, sexual and intimate relations. It also underscores that technologies provide greater agency in seeking and meeting possible lovers and companions within a broadened social network environment. However, some felt that they were unable to have the full experience of what the platform can afford due to superficial interactions. This gives rise to concerns on the need to engage in “self-branding activities to market themselves as desirable commodities in a crowded relationship marketplace”. Despite these concerns, dating apps do enhance desires and capabilities in seeking a compatible partner and provides a network of relationships and the ability to “build a mutually fulfilling relationship”, thereby upholding the ideals of acquiring a long-term monogamous relationship.

The reading underscores the concerns of aesthetic bias on hindering people from expanding their social capital. The authors then draw parallels to the “real-world sites of seduction and courtship” in which many people only approach others “based solely on physical attraction and subsequently engage in the strategic ‘presentation of self’ to convey a desirable impression.” I agree with this point to a limited extent. It is true that the willingness of people in getting to know someone better is largely based on appearance especially on an application like tinder. The mechanisms of tinder fuel this by only displaying a picture and a short description of the person during the first few seconds of introducing someone, but it does not showcase or accentuate any personality traits of the person. Many can argue that it is more efficient or that it is enough to determine your interest in someone, but it is also possible that a potential soulmate might have been swiped left just due to appearance.

However, I do not believe that it is reflective of the real-world scenario. Even though the aspect of first impressions still holds true, what makes the applications different is the affordances of technology which masks the actual identity of the person. This is evident through ‘Catfishing’ such that malicious users can create fake profiles to deceive other users online. The authenticity of someone’s online identity cannot be compared to reality as with the advent of technology, many people engage in “self-branding” such as using Snapchat filters to change their appearances to fit the desired standards of attractiveness. An example would be from the MTV series Catfish where people meet their online dates to find out shocking truths about the people whom they were supposedly in love with.

Furthermore, going beyond the scope of appearance, “strategic self-representation” can be done through conversations as users can plan or correct their sentences, which malicious users might also take advantage of and prey on the predictability of user’s interests to prepare their responses. Despite these concerns, I do not deny the impact of technology in enhancing intimacy as it has brought people together on a global scale. Through appropriate and cautious use, I believe dating applications can be a potential alternative to long-term relationships, but real-life interactions still overshadow them to a large extent.

Credits:

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/0*mB0BortnE1FxS7z0.jpg

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/493/135/449.png

[skellytan17]

Interpassivity and Game-based learning (Kelly Tan)

In this week’s reading, Pelletier (2005) highlights the relationship between pleasure and agency while examining Žižek’s notion of interpassivity and perspectives in the context of game-based learning. The contrast between the active and passive toys underscores the idea of “delegating our agency to the game’s needs that sustains enjoyment” and how playing these games related with our subjectivity and the development of our sense of self through others. She then sorted the contention between pleasure and agency into four versions in the context of game-based learning. The first version, Emancipatory, talks about games being able to liberate the user temporarily from boredom that derives from the traditional methods of while pleasure is derived from the lack of agency. The second version, Conservative, suggests that games can be dangerous and educators have to constantly recover students to ensure that constant awareness of the learning objectives. Pleasure is hence, derived from the act of stopping play for painful learning to take place. Under the Postmodern version, games allow users to do whatever they want in the game as long as they learn and there would be no real consequences. However, it does not consider the “constraints of the social space” and its actual influence on the “development of one’s offline identity”. Lastly, under Žižek’s theory of interpassivity, there is no critique of the game but there is awareness of the structures built into the game by the user. Play is thus possible due to its predictability of outcomes and the inflexibility of rules highlighting the difference between the virtual world and reality.

Even though technology is an undeniably relevant and influential tool in this digital age, its affordances and its implications in education are not yet clearly defined or interpreted in a single, universal way. This is aligned with Pelletier’s configuration of pleasure and agency, displaying no one definitive way to describe the experiences, the fears, the relief that gamified education can provide. Even though Žižek’s argument attempts to counteract the limitations of the other versions, context still matters the most. During my group discussion, we explored the example of game-based learning in a business module, allowing students to manage businesses and compete with one another. One of my groupmates was hoping to incorporate this new addition for FASS modules but in contrast, another groupmate was puzzled. Being the one who enrolled in the module, she felt that it was stressful and was constantly afraid of failure. These perspectives highlight versions 1 and 2 with one feeling that it has the emancipatory potential while the other believing that it is a temptation, disrupting the focus on the learning objective.

This is interesting because despite being aware of the intransigence of rules and that there are no real consequences, some might not see it as play or being pleasurable. It is stated that over-identification with the Other is concerning the rules of the game and not the in-game character, but it is precisely that when games are incorporated as part of a graded curriculum, the over-identification is of a higher stake and seemingly becomes a projection into the real world instead. The way we manage and run businesses within the game are under constant scrutiny and evaluation, every failure is recorded and reflected in our grades. This unconsciously restricts us from exploring what cyberspace initially affords -  the environment which allows us to explore endless opportunities. For example, when comparing Asian and Western cultures, Asians tend to be more fixated on grades with the fear of making mistakes. Hence, this can be associated with how students and educators perceive games in the educational context.

[skellytan17]

Consumption (Kelly Tan)

In “Public Curation and Private Collection: The Production of Knowledge on Pinterest.com”, Lui (2015) highlights the curation and taste of Pinterest. She points out how Pinterest is being marketed in the way that users can show people who they are through the boards created, accentuating the idea of “authenticity” which is in contrast to other social media sites which focuses on connectivity and communication. This promotion of “social curation” thus leads to users believing that they are “participating in personal acts of collection and reflexive identity building”. Lui (2015) posits that even though Pinterest is unique in “ [streamlining] these activities into a single process of discovery and declaration”, the boundary between public and personal acts becomes porous. While users believe that they may be privately building on their collection due to the “site’s emphasis on individuality and customization”, they are engaging in public acts of knowledge construction, which involves not only users but also other external forces such as businesses who are active members of Pinterest. Lui(2015) then highlights the technological affordances which contribute and influence this business ecosystem, noting how the navigational structure of the site provides a constant display of content based on one’s aesthetic, topic convergence steering and merging chosen topics into a larger homogenised group and content regulation which restricts certain negative content but could also be used to manage the site’s aesthetics. These affordances attract and allow for business integration due to its ability to grasp attention, source and display products to niche groups through topics as well as partnerships with influencers.

Lui (2015) highlights how Pinterest acts as a platform to dictate what is considered aesthetic and how the categories has influenced the production and reception of cultural content. She also underscores that the emphasis on visual appeal may lead to people wanting to achieve “fantasy lifestyles and products that may not fit their incomes or actual lives”, hence there is a “widening gap between expectation and reality”. In my opinion, Pinterest acts as part of the cultural intermediaries that shape trends and create new levels of taste for both the “upper” class or “lower” class. The categories and businesses create and design brands or advertisements to bring users through the content, identifying what is legitimate based on their expertise while also limiting users in creating categorisations which does not fit into the aesthetic standards of Pinterest, thus, emphasising on the decreased agency. The aestheticizing of posts or even objects can also be seen through Tumblr, IKEA or Muji products such that “many consumers overlook the mass standardisation because they seem cleverly personalised to represent their niche lifestyles” (Murphy, 2016). Lui (2015) makes a good point about how Pinterest as tastemakers have a great amount of influence over users exposure to content and their social capital which in turn also attracts businesses to advertise and source for niche customers. Even though this phenomenon might be prevalent in many other websites, new technologies can also enable people to be tastemakers thus, they are less controlled and this undermines the legitimacy of cultural intermediaries. That being said, in this digital age, platforms might still influence curation and shaping of our cultural identity as what we consume can demonstrate the social group we belong to and the increasing homogeneity in taste as well but it is also up to users in exercising their agency and understand their role in the digital world.

Credits: https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=KX5ZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT31&lpg=PT31&dq=cultural+intermediaries+pinterest&source=bl&ots=Njvvwu_n3m&sig=ACfU3U2Kt956YU7XE02dXhNi0GLsrkBPBw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG35Xd2qfvAhVWU30KHYJ2DlQQ6AEwEXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=cultural%20intermediaries%20pinterest&f=false

[skellytan17]

What is the Sharing Economy? (Kelly Tan)

In “What is the Sharing Economy”, Ravenelle (2019) delves into the lived reality of the workers in the sharing economy in comparison to what the sharing economy initially promised. She brings in the idea of Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft such that the platforms under the sharing economy, markets themselves as being a community, Gemeinschaft, that allows for the fostering of social interactions, mutual sharing of services, the building of trust as well as bringing “entrepreneurship or financial sustainability to the masses”. In contrast, Ravenelle (2019) argued that the reality is that the sharing economy displayed more aspects of Gesellschaft than Gemeinschaft in the way that technological and social forces led to the “lower costs and convenience” which consumers care more about, making it more transactional, impersonal, discriminatory and results in weaker ties. Ravenelle (2019) thus highlights the implications that result from the “gig economy’s shifting of risk and liability” which includes the “downgrading of the value of labour” and “[subjecting] workers to a technologically enabled early-industrial system with limited workplace-safety measures or options for redress”.

Ravenelle (2019) talks about the downsides and increasing exploitation of workers in the sharing economy. I believe that people who participate or are involved are aware of the exploitation, yet they are still willing to take the risks. This highlights that even though Ravenelle (2019) might be critical about the precarious work, there are certain contexts in which people still depend on these platforms as they have motivations that outweighs the bad or instead, more of choosing the lesser of two evils. This, thus, brings me to the question of whether the sharing economy deserves to be sustained or whether it is sustainable. When talking about the sustainability of the sharing economy, the traditional economy is also involved. I agree with Ravenelle (2019) that with the convergence of technology, these platforms not only provide convenience but also very low barriers to entry, resulting in the ease of getting employment. Starting a side hustle, the idea of entrepreneurship all become dreams that used to seem out of reach, have suddenly become easily achievable. However, this happy ending does not apply to everyone. Some people do not have the necessary skills to enter the workforce or acquire a stable job, thus, these platforms might be their only source of income which is needed for them to survive as well as feed their families. In the case of Grab versus taxis, some taxi drivers also work as Grab drivers as they know that the competition has made it difficult to find customers as most people now do not wait along the roadsides to hail for a cab. Driving around can be very exhausting but being jobless and being incapable of providing for the family, is even worse which highlights the point above about choosing the lesser of two evils. Despite this, it does not justify the downsides of the sharing economy as we cannot neglect the people who failed to benefit from such platforms. This refers to the mental-wellbeing that is inflicted in which there is no minimum wage for these workers and as Ravenelle (2019) mentioned the idea of insecurity that “work today doesn’t necessarily mean work tomorrow”, this can lead to great amounts of stress. Going back to the example of Grab, there is a driver rating system that could determine whether one can continue to stay on the platform. For people who holds the responsibility of providing for their family, precarious work greatly affects their lives down the road. Therefore, it is hard to tell whether the sharing economy should stay as there are two sides of the coin. Perhaps, the sharing economy is a necessary evil but whether it is sustainable or should continue is dependent on the amount of aid the government could provide for these workers.

[skellytan17]

Participatory Culture (Kelly Tan)

In Social Media as Participatory Culture, Fuchs (2014) argues that Jenkins takes on a reductionist and utopian view of participatory culture and neglects the concept of ‘participatory democracy’ as well as the implications of the political economy of media. Fuchs (2014) further posits that a “truly participatory media democracy must also be an ownership democracy” in which he critiques Jenkins’ arguments for ignoring “ownership as an aspect of participation and does not give attention to aspects of class and capitalism. He further explains that with large corporations dominating the internet, capitalist ideals of these companies fuels exploitation and commodification of users and thus, highlighting how there is no real democratisation and shared control over the decision-making processes. Fuchs also refutes Jenkins’ point on how the exploitation of users' digital labour is not really a problem if they have social benefits from platform usage. 

I do agree with Fuchs that in reality not everyone have the same power in which “Internet culture is not separate from political economy, but is to a large extent organized, controlled and owned by companies”. When it comes to Youtube, Instagram or other social networking sites, it is true that consumers do have some autonomy in the creation of content in achieving whatever they aim to on the platform. However, these big corporations control how these content is being shared, organised and created, not to mention, possibly exploited as free labour. Fuchs then denies Jenkins’ view that “cultural worth is seen as legitimatization of exploitation.” I believe there are different sentiments to these in which the main problem is whether people know that they are exploited or how they respond after knowing. It is true that to a certain extent, some users might be aware but they continue in the platform as they feel they might gain something from it. However, that does not eliminate the existence of exploitation and it does not mean that everyone who conforms or does not retaliate symbolises that they are willing to get exploited. Reality TV is one example in which “consumers are invited to sell access to their personal lives in a way not dissimilar to that in which they sell their labor power”.  This “saves the producers from having to undertake expensive market research, and by, in effect, publicising television programmes, which saves marketing costs”. Shows such as Love Island on Netflix have contestants who leave their careers just to gain fame or spend their summer in the villa which later on realised that there were many restrictions and their privacy was being compromised as most of the time they were being filmed or had a microphone on.

In conclusion, both Jenkins and Fuchs provide both sides of the coin and perspectives on participatory culture as well as participatory democracy. As much as Jenkins’ argument might seem too idealistic in which he presents mainly the pros of spreadable media, Fuchs’ argument too might have been somewhat negative when talking about how “there would not be long-term peace between capital and consumers/ workers/prosumers” and that users could never win corporations. Spreadable media has its perks and with technology, agency of users is not non-existent and even plays a crucial role in participation. However, will there ever be a time when we can really achieve equality for both consumers and producers? There have been sites such as Wikipedia or open source software which base themselves on the benefits of cooperation rather than competition. Hence, instead of focusing on this never-ending competition, I believe that we should be optimistic that “creative activity and ‘exploitation’ could coexist and intertwine one another within the context of the emerging online economy”.

Credits: 

http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/user-generated-content-free-labour-and-cultural-industries

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Love_Island_%282015%29_title-card.jpg

[skellytan17]

The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (Kelly Tan)

In “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” by Adorno and Horkheimer (2012), they discuss how culture has become increasingly enmeshed with the capitalist economy , and transforming it into a commodity and a crucial medium for ideological domination. They also highlighted how domination has become the overarching paradigm of what it means to be human such that people still possess irrational intentions despite rational methods. This perspectives were generally guided by the economic model of superstructure and base which was intertwined with social totality and how it exists in every sphere. This provoked the idea of separating and analysing these distinct spheres as it would be a problem if nothing could be done to make changes in the event when this economic paradigm merges with society and culture. Another main problem was how art and culture, which was previously a platform for the freedom of expression, has now been brought under the logic of monopoly capitalism. Artists used to survive due to patronage as it was understood that art had the emancipatory potential to explore ideas and allow new kinds of ideological configurations to evolve. However, with capitalism and the commercialisation of art and culture, it becomes a tool of homogeneity to control the masses as well as a source of income in the eyes of the creator. This also results in the ideological domination and passive consumption of the audience such that there is a decreased capacity for autonomous thought.

In my opinion, it is not necessarily true about the destruction of individual capacity for autonomous thought. Since the article is slightly outdated, it could explain why there would be less autonomy as there was little room or a lack of mediums for consumers to create alternative media or counter the content that was controlled by the government or a large company. With technological advancements, there are mediums which are not controlled which allows users to create their content and express their opinion. They are thus, not passive consumers in platforms such as Youtube, Tiktok, Facebook where everyone can easily access and display their ideas. Things like reaction videos, reviews or even ‘cancel culture’ are all forms of individual thought and definitely not displaying conformity in taste and the fusing of the status quo.

Going back to the point about how creators, such as filmmakers, standardise their films to fit the taste of the consumers, I believe there are other perspectives to this. Everyone has their own concept and interpretation of genres. Genres such as love, romance, thriller, fantasy can be easily recognised or comprehensible but there are complexities and subjectivity in these. It is true that there are movies which most people grasp easily and could be recycled by creators in order to gain revenue but there are films, on the contrary, that provoke discussions and questions among the audience. This is what constitutes a film with the emancipatory radical potential which the authors believe was not present due to the overwhelming irrational goal of gaining revenue. For example, Tenet by Christopher Nolan, possesses recognisable genres such as Science fiction and Action and it was also associated with spy movies, however, most people came out of the movie theatres baffled. Unlike normal spy movies, it did not have flashy outfits or expensive-looking equipment. Some critiqued it being the worst movie while others, enjoyed, disassembling this puzzle. From my experience watching the movie, I remembered being so confused and immediately searching online for works of educated critiques as well as discussed with my friends on the explanations of the plot. The filmmaker, Christopher Nolan, who is known for his existential, ethical and epistemological themes and interestingly, he also mentioned about focusing on the balance of commerce and art. He has always been interested in the subjectivity of time and during the process of making his movies, he would explore scientific theories with a group of specialists. This is just one example of how filmmakers put in the effort to provide an experience for their audience which can ultimately alter based on the audience’s subjective perceptions and thus, would reflect how not everything is based on about revenue and recycling content.

Ultimately, it is up to the consumers to accept the type of content and whether it will lead to something we have to conform to. The cycle of rise and impact of culture industry by Adorno and Horkheimer (2012) exists but I believe it does not occur in totality as creators and consumers are versatile and subjective. This brings us to the idea that conformity might not necessarily be a bad thing as long as there is a market and a demand for it.

Credits:

https://resizing.flixster.com/4MrL62heb7yBgBt8zllSeqNZxg4=/206x305/v2/https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p7825626_p_v10_af.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Tenet_movie_poster.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Interstellar_film_poster.jpg

https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2015/04/21/how-christopher-nolan-balances-box-office-bucks-with-artistic-cred/?sh=3afab2da721d

[skellytan17]

Mobile Media (Kelly Tan)

In this reading, the authors did a study to understand how portable devices construct and support an individual’s identity and activities, mediating relationships with people, places, and institutions. The authors talked about how most studies were focused on the mobile phone and that there are many other digital artefacts that were involved in mediating social communication and transactions in their urban environment. They then decided to go beyond mobile phones and adopt an analytic view through different sets of social negotiations such as the different ways of understanding the relationship between mobile media, place, and time. By examining how portable technologies are part of our embodied presence in specific locations of interaction, it helps to understand new technosocial configurations that couple devices, locations, infrastructures, and behavior into recognizable genres of social practice: Cocooning, Camping and Footprinting.

Cocooning talks about how people are mobilizing private media infrastructures within public infrastructures to momentarily claim them for personal space.

They see their relationship to environments that they pass through as temporary and limited which specific temporal features to “fill” or “kill” in-between time. The norm of cocooning is highlighted when mobile phone talk has continued to be a site of social tension because it fails to adhere to the norm of cocooning of personal media which is to maintain a boundary between personal audio and the ambient environment.

Camping is the process of constructing personal workspace by bringing portable media to public places of choice where they feel some affinity. They put down roots that have temporal limits, but are more extended than commuters who are simply passing through

Unlike cocooning, people saw value in residing for a period of time in a desirable location and are able to enjoy having both rich personal media and workspaces as well as the benefits of an ambient public or service-oriented space.

Footprinting is the process of integrating an individual’s trajectory into the transactional history of a particular establishment. Customer foot- printing is a process that is largely driven by the particular location-based establishment rather than by the individual. With the move towards franchising and chain stores, reward schemes are increasingly delocalized as well as depersonalized

Looking at these concepts, I was pretty amazed by how these phenomena actually had their own definitions and how relatable they are as it is something that occurs on a daily basis. I agree with the point on how “generational identity, class identity, and profession may be factors that are as important as national context in determining variability in how people mobilize different genres of presence in urban space”. From my point of view, cocooning is a very common practice such that I do witness people from different generations doing it on public transport. The reading stated how “the combination of a music player, headphones, and reading material creates a cocoon which enables effective escape from involvement in the physical setting in a way respectful to others in the vicinity”. However, as much as it might be considered a norm to “maintain a boundary between personal audio and the ambient environment”, some people might become too absorbed in their mobile phones or music players. When one becomes detached from reality, they are not aware of their surroundings. This brings me to the issues that sparked due to teenagers not giving up their seats to the elderly as they are either too immersed in their video games or in certain cases, some teenagers were reported to have ignored and avoided eye contact with those who need the seat. In this situation, I believe this act would not be seen as respectful instead. This shows a stark difference in the perceived attitudes of mobile media usage by different generations and one way to explain this would possibly be the difference in the amount of exposure and interaction with this form of technology which the elderly might not be used to and may not understand. That being said, there are people of the older generation who are apt in technology and would also act according to this social norm.

Another point I want to highlight is “the evolution of urban infrastructures and services with informational devices and infrastructures due to the increasing convergence of information devices with mobile media technology”. I believe that most of the infrastructure and services now incorporates the ease of mobile media in the forms of transactions as well as for customer membership. Applications such Paylah or Grabpay have become new modes of payment instead of cash or cards and these are even seen in hawker centres. There are even places which only accept these forms of methods which thus, require customers to adapt. When I first entered NUS, I did not have Paylah and mostly used cash. Most of my friends were shocked but in my opinion, I felt that using those forms of payment would become too addictive such that its convenience and ease of use would cause me to spend more. Even though I told myself that I would be disciplined, after a few weeks, I realise these digitalised form of payment was already embedded in many parts of NUS and at the same time, there were not many ATMs around. Thus, I ended up having to install the application. This makes me ponder whether we have to constantly adapt to the changes in technology especially since it has interwoven with our immediate environment and the places we cross in our lives or whether resisting them would allow us to continue with our social and impersonal interactions.

[skellytan17]

Domestic Media (Kelly Tan)

In this reading, Spigel (2015) focuses on TV’s relation to the spatial geographies of everyday life, and the exploration of TV’s impact on the relations between, and social construction of, private and public spaces. She highlights the way TV has changed the way people experience time and space, making the world seem both smaller in scale and more readily accessible. She further postulates that TV was often depicted as a spatial apparatus that brought families closer together, or the electronic “hearth”. However, alternative views highlights the divisive force that hinders traditional forms of intimacy and especially the gendered spaces of the home. Spigel (2015) also discusses the change in the status quo of TV which initially acted as a sign of prestige but later seen as site of shame as it transitions from a “rich man’s toy” to a “mass medium”. She then talked about that TV’s role in racist geographies in the United States, but at the same time allowed a way for minorities to bypass real-life discrimination by bringing entertainment into the homes. As TV become more privatized, the concept of the “home theater” led to the fortress” mentality, giving rise to gated communities and private security systems as well as the bourgeois ideals of domestic havens and the violation of personal privacy. Spigel (2015) then posits that TV promotes the experience of “telepresence” that is produced through “liveness” , which led to the idea of “everywhereness”

One point that caught my attention was how “TV served as a compensation for social/spatial/housing inequality”. If someone feels awkward in a social setting or afraid of being a fashion disaster or too ill to step outside of their homes, TV definitely compensates them by bringing the same experience from the public space into their own private spaces. However, in terms of more salient issues in my own opinion, TV and media still have a long way before one would consider it a “compensation”. Even though TV is a constructive space for closeted and hybrid identities, there is still a lack of representation of the diverse races, LGBTQ community and women in media. Due to the institutionalisation of media, information portrayed and displayed to the audience all possess an intention which might influence them to think a certain way. For example, during the Black Lives Matter movement, the news depicted the protestors to be violent and there was a viral video which showed them disrupting the traffic and attacking people. However, the actual video was circulated around social media showing how a car accelerated into the crowd and resulted in many being injured as well as policemen attacking innocent black citizens. While discussing this issue with my cousin, she told me how her father watched only  the news and his first comment was about how the protestors were causing a mess and should stop as they were disrupting the peace of their countries. Another example would be during the 9/11 attacks in which media’s portrayal of Muslims and Islam gave rise to feelings of islamophobia.

Credits: https://occupiedpalestine.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/395492224.gif

At the same time, in the white-dominated film industry, there is less diversity portrayed. This does not only apply to race but also the LGBTQ community. It is true that there is an increase in homosexual representation such as the popular movie “Brokeback Mountain” or “Moonlight” which won best picture at the 89th Academy awards, but most focus on the romance between men. Lesbians are largely underrepresented as compared to men on both big screens as well as TV, even though most of them are part of comedic depictions. There are great movies and shows which portrays queer women such as “Battle of the sexes” or “orange is the new black”, however, within these layers of the community, there is still a lack of representation of the black people or lesbians as well, giving rise to the same topic of white dominance even in the LGBTQ community.

There are many intricate layers of the community, society and the human race. These movements bring to light that these people still live in fear despite the bravery to voice their opinions. In the reading, an African American man stated how he was able to bypass the degradation experienced in public spaces which “require [them] to be segregated and occupy the least desirable seats”. Human are social creatures and have the freedom to explore, but the fear bounds him to his private space so would this be compensation? With that being said, there are some forms of media that intervene in everyday experiences as people rethink and rearrange entrenched social practices and beliefs such as providing a link for people living in the Diaspora. Hence, I believe that the convergence of TV of media into our lives could bring us to greater understanding of the people and world around us as we are agents of change.

[skellytan17]

Living with Technology (Kelly Tan)

McCarthy and Wright (2004) postulate that there is a perceptible shift in using user experience design to refer the relationships between people and technologies. This also reflects a broadening of focus from computers to a plethora of interactive technologies and work-related activities to lived experience. In Human Computer Interaction, the profile of experience seems to be increasingly salient. They also posit that successful technologies are those that are in harmony with users’ needs and support relationships and activities that enhance user’s experiences. While embracing the contingency of action, McCarthy and Wright are also keen to develop a stronger sense of that felt life and the emotional quality of activity in their approach to experience, while also embedding dimensions in sense making aspects of experience.

McCarthy and Wright highlighted how HCI is not just about upholding the characteristics of usability but also whether it fulfils the needs of the user which has been commonly used in consumer branding as well.  For example, Apple’s branding of the iPod was a huge success but there were other companies which had already manufactured an MP3 player and were much more technologically advanced. The reason for this is due to the difference in marketing in which they highlighted “1000 songs in a pocket” whereas other companies highlighted the technicality and advanced software of the product which most people did not understand. Apple’s tagline for the iPod allows consumers to grasp the idea easily and understood that their product fulfils the need for people to bring songs around and listen to them conveniently. Another example to highlight the negative aspect of not fulfilling the needs of the user would be Clippy by Microsoft. Clippy was made as a virtual assistant to help by performing an action when asked. However, it was an annoying interface such that its proactive response seems to be unnecessary and worst of all, pops up at inappropriate tines. This not only does not fulfil the user’s needs of completing their assignments or task but impedes the progress. This evokes emotion as well such as how users feel annoyed, and highlights the involvement of emotion, feeling and experience in technology.

Credit: https://www.facebook.com/clippymeme/photos/1847088962210449

I also agree with the view on how augments people’s ability to organise complex and busy work, family and social lives. For example, most of my friends and family members have been using Google calendar or the iPhone Calendar to schedule meetings or set reminders for upcoming activities. It is a very convenient way of storing information and keeping your social circle updated as information can be shared to others. This has provided a lot of assistance as well relief such that having too many information or meetings scheduled at one go would result in a memory load. At the same time, shifting from physical calendars or planners, shows the prevalence and effectiveness of technology in our everyday lives.