Era of the Casual Activist

I am not a political activist. Nor am I involved in any such cause or group. However, I believe that the majority of people are not involved in any cause. I think all too often we become caught up in our own lives, trapped in our affairs. We do not get around to supporting activist groups.

Though, at the same time I believe that we do not join up with or contribute to activism because the task seems too monumental to make a difference in. This is often the case with things like Free Tibet or various global warming groups. I think this lack of activism is added to by our society’s facebook mentality. On facebook if you want to support something or raise awareness for it you join a group. This non-committal behaviour is perpetuated in actual causes as well.

Most people are willing to support a cause, or pay lip service to it, such as with environmental causes, so long as we do not have to do anything that will severely change our lives or habits. Many causes are aimed at making very small changes to our habits in order to affect change when it is done on a large enough scale. Such is the case in environmental causes like FLICK OFF. “Try carpooling. Ride a bike. Turn this stuff around so it applies to you. There are so many little things you can do to lessen your impact on the planet.” (FLICKOFF)

We seem to be moving away from the era of severely devoted activists that organize huge demonstrations to protest something, and moving into the era of the casual activist. Moving into an era where everyone can be an activist, if we can only find the time in our day to do so. Therein lays the catch.

-30-

Work Cited

FLICKOFF. "What you can do." FLICKOFF.org. Environmental Defence, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

Tis the Season

Participatory culture is a direct opposition to consumer culture. Participatory culture is the concept of creating something to add to current culture, often from something else which previously existed. Rather than just buying or using something that was already there.

Our Society has a similar concept with presents given from children to parents at Christmas. Kids are encouraged to make their own gifts. Partially because they have neither money, nor private access to stores; partially because of the sentimental value attached, but nonetheless the thought of creating rather than consuming is still inherent. It’s funny that such a present making relationship isn’t reciprocal. I suppose kids are a bit too overwhelmed with consumerism to fully appreciate a created item as equal.

Participatory culture takes a number of forms. A common one is people making remixes, a creation of new music from a combination of older music. Though any cultural creation counts. My class has a wiki, which is like a personal sharing space where the whole class can make pages and contribute, similar to Wikipedia. The wiki, even Wikipedia itself are both participatory culture. They contribute to a knowledge base.

Blogs can also count, in a similar respect to remixes. Blogs take old knowledge and information, and create and propagate new ideas. Good blogs, blogs that really seek to make changes in the world, blogs that move beyond the occasional rants about what bugs the author about society, those blogs are participatory. A true blog, one which is not merely used as a proliferation medium, uses analysis and critical thinking in its posts. For this reason all blogs in this course are graded for such. I believe these are the grade determiners because without those elements of refinement, a medium such as this loses its worth. For a blog to truly be participatory culture it must present something that is not already disseminated everywhere else.

Like in all other participatory media, a blog author such as myself must strive to create something unique, something that gives the reader new ideas and forces them to re-examine previous beliefs. That is my contribution to participatory culture.

The metonym of Iwo Jima

Culture jamming is a process of parody. We have all seen culture jamming, though often without such a moniker. Whenever you see fake ads, comically skewed corporate logos or slogans, basically any satire or parody of something corporate it can be classified as culture jamming.
I think this process says something interesting about our society. We have the ability to openly slander powerful organizations without fear of repercussion. That takes an inherently free society to pull off.
Below I’ve included an example. A picture of American soldiers in Iraq, in a famous war pose. The picture is a reproduction of the flag raising at Iwo Jima. Something has changed though, from that picture to this one, from that war to this one. The flag, which symbolizes what they are fighting for, has changed. It has changed from the original American flag, displaying the triumph of freedom and democracy to a consumer logo of an oil company. The culture jam is exemplifying the difference between this war and the last. This is not a war for people but rather a war for oil companies, they are the real winners in this.

Good culture jamming should do more than just make a statement though. It has to stir something in people, force a reaction. We see so many advertisements in our day to day lives we learn to tune out the vast majority of them. The whole idea of culture jamming is to stand out of these ads. This is a controversial parody. It could be interpreted as saying that Americans are dying for a needless war for profits invented by the oil industry. This may cause a lot of outrage in people, and that is exactly what culture jamming should be trying to do. If you want to get people to do something you need to spark something in them.
Just as Napoleon put it when referring to leading soldiers, “A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him.” (qtd. in Fifield 218) The idea is equally true for leading people to a cause. You cannot expect people to really commit themselves to a cause they see no incentive to join. In order to rally people they need to understand that this cause is a moral imperative, such that the consequences to do nothing would be catastrophic.

-30-

Work Cited

Fifield, Paul. Marketing strategy: the difference between marketing and markets. Butterworth- Heinemann, 2007. Print.

Do or Do Not There is No Buy

Buy Nothing Day, a day at the end of November when people attempt to stave off the temptation to give into materialism and "bring the capitalist consumption machine to a grinding– if only momentary – halt." (Adbusters) A one day boycott of buying things and using lights, and non-essential appliances.

This is of course the work of an activist movement; politically charged one at that, based on the use of the word ‘capitalist’. Now I suppose the short sighted attack at this event would be simply: people will just buy twice as much the following day to make up for it. The counter to this is probably the idea that people will attain some kind of self actualization. That people will realize they don't need to consume to be happy and will swear off their overly commercialized ways forever. As tempting as it is to aruge against such a naive idea, I'm not writing this blog to argue such a short sighted attack as my main point.

I would prefer to ask a different question. One that people should ask about all activist movements. Is this about doing good, or feeling good? By this I mean, are people who participate in these kinds of things, rallies, protests, one day boycotts, etc. really trying to change things? Or are they in fact just doing this for their own conscience?

There are a slew of issues facing our society, and there are even more activist movements opposing such issues. How many are making changes and how many are just a rallying party for people to feel better about themselves? If I get together with my friends and do some of these activities, like pretending to be a zombie in a mall, or making a conga line in Wal-Mart, are we really changing people's minds about consumption? Or are we just doing it because it's fun and we're bored that night?

Buy nothing day is an interesting concept, but from my experience people are already painfully aware that the environment is going downhill and we're to blame. Adbusters should be trying to do something that will actually make changes on a measurable scale, like government reforms. Instead they're just organizing an ad campaign that's marketing, like the "flyer your neighborhood" (adbuster) idea, probably causes more pollution then it stops. This campaign is just letting people ease their conscience and take the easy way out. People need to make real changes and not just pay lip service. As master Yoda would put it, “Do or do not there is no try.”

-30-

Work Cited

Adbusters. "Buy Nothing Day." www.adbusters.org. Adbusters, n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2009.

Net Neutrality and Chrome OS

Net neutrality is an important, if often overlooked, issue facing our internet immersed culture. The concept is a simple one. The belief that one person, who pays to access the internet, should be able to use the internet as they see fit. This is an issue because many internet service providers are attempting to put limits on your internet usage, or prioritize certain sites to increase profits.

The Canadian bill C-552 proposed the enforcement of net neutrality. Though it did not go through due to the dissolving of the 39th parliament last year.

“Network operators shall not engage in network management practices that favour, degrade or prioritize any content, application or service transmitted over a broadband network based on its source, ownership or destination.”(Angus 1)

The business model proposed by some is aimed at making the internet more like TV. Media companies will manufacture the content, rather than individuals. The internet would go the way of radio; no longer can any individual broadcast their ideas, only specific providers owned by media companies do. No one should be able to “own” the internet, yet if we do not take a stand on this net neutrality issue companies will begin locking things down and charging people to access them. How do you feel about 50 cents an email, or a penny a click when you are on the web?

There is something else concerning about this issue. Google recently unveiled their Chrome operating system. This is the first ever, cloud based operating system. This means that nothing is stored on your computer, it’s all online, and your computer is just an access point. This is a fascinating new technology but think of the implications with net neutrality.

Google, the world’s most successful search engine, is a trusted site that’s sole purpose is to allow for the quick easy and cheap dissemination of information across the internet. They create an operating system that could be cheaper and more efficient then Windows or Macs. Ipso facto people quickly make the switch and buy that operating system. Then, just as everyone becomes totally dependent on the internet, the internet service providers crack down on internet usage and laws are finalized to limit usage and lock down the internet. Do we have reason to worry?

-30-

Work Cited

Angus, Charlie. Bill C-552. Ottawa: Publishing and Depository Services, 2008. Print

Digitalizing Human Interaction

This was a scrap of writing I've found in my documents referencing many of the "experience cheapened by immediacy"points. It may perhaps be overly cynical, though I suppose it is in line with many of my posts from this time period.

"The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate." Joseph Priestly

"Electronic communication is an instantaneous and illusory contact that creates a sense of intimacy without the emotional investment that leads to close friendships." Clifford Stoll

These are both really interesting quotes, the first I heard years ago, though I really didn’t understand it then. The second I’ve found only recently though it is remarkably eloquent in voicing an idea I’ve, as of yet, been unable to.

It is an idea that Kittler talked about in Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Klosterman has also spoken on this topic when addressing Twitter on a radio show, and it was a major theme in my term paper.  The idea is a simple one. All technology, all media, detract from our connection with life. They detract from the processes that make up life. It's the little things that constitute the experience, and we're delegating the little things to technology.

It's like having an assistant that does your work for you; it takes away from what you experience. It takes away from the experience itself.

With things like email and social networking sites people have the ability to contact each other, though for the most part we seldom do. The attitude is: "I have 800 Facebook friends, 12 of whom I actually talk to, 2 of which I see in the real world." Talking on Facebook, texting, emailing etc. detracts from the experience of talking to a person in person. Just as the answering machine even the phone, to a somewhat lesser extent, does this.

The reason is something I touched on in my term paper recently. It's the idea that when we are not present in a conversation physically, we lose the nuances of conversation. The inflection and body language. Although also because these media are not two-way the other person has as long as they want to filter their response before they respond. You no longer get an honest sense of their personality.

The more connected we are to people digitally, the less connected to them we are personally. We diverge, we use technology as a go between so that we don't have to really be there, talk to them, experience the conversation. We have become a third party to the whole process.

Technology detracts from our connection with life because it cheapens the process, and removes the need to experience. Just as these new means of communication and social networking are digitalizing human interaction.

Media Hegemonies - Mapping Who Owns What

Hegemony is an interesting concept. Hegemony is essentially the power of the predominant or ruling class. It is power through leadership, or domination. Though anyone can technically have hegemony, and many have it without realizing it. The ability to rally others to a cause, the ability to lead others with a specific purpose, this is hegemony.

Hegemony is most often recognized when it is used by corporations. One corporation is able to control smaller corporations or businesses, and to a less direct extent, the public at large. Though even this kind of hegemony, though suspected, is not always something people realize the full magnitude of.

Take for example Rogers Communications they own CHFI, City TV and MacLean’s Magazine, to name a few. This means that they could be controlling a variety of things in these companies; from policies, to political stance. Often this hegemonic control allows the parent company to directly affect what its lesser companies do. When Ted Rogers died, every Rogers TV local news station broadcast essentially a video news release, about his life as their top story. Should the story be ignored? No, but should it get top billing on a local news station, nay on every Rogers owned station nationwide?
The Rogers owned MacLean’s put out a biography story on Ted Rogers, and the story of his life in pictures.

This is not necessarily a terrible thing in and of itself. However, as Chuck Klosterman put it, "Nothing is ever, in and of itself." (Klosterman, 2*) This kind of journalistic swaying is dangerous. If a company is allowed to change its subsidiary news station's content, allowing them to dictate what constitutes news, rather than a journalist, the implications are rather significant. If a CEO of a company is telling journalists what is fit to print or air, then where does that leave journalistic integrity?

-30-

Work Cited

Klosterman, Chuck. Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs. New York: Scribner, 2003. Print.

*(Note: the quote is actually from his introduction which was not numbered, however it was the second page of the introduction.)

The first thing I've learned from Dragon Age: Origins...

--Post Unrelated to Mandatory Course Posts--
Resting on one's laurels.
Now I didn't think I was one to do such a thing. However, as of late I've realized that this idiom rings true. This idiom means that a person becomes satisfied enough with their accomplishments to stop working towards new goals.
I realized recently (after hearing the phrase in a video game) that I've been doing this since finishing my Term paper. Now it was a rather difficult task, but that in no way gives me the right to stop writing these blog posts for so long a time.
This post is essentially an apology to my (mostly imaginary) audience for resting on my laurels. I assure you that like the first set of posts I shall be attempting to organize my thoughts and tackle several of said posts in rapid succession.