Design toThrive

blah blah blah

Convergence Culture

An important concept I took away from the introduction of Henry Jenkins’ Convergence Culture is the paradigm shift in the media consumer- media producer relationship. As convergence culture has evolved, media producers have increasingly consolidated media content and platforms, while media consumers have also concentrated their power and efforts collectively as a group to “take media into their own hands” and participate and interact with it (Jenkins 17). Convergence is predicated on cooperation between media industries and media consumers, and Jenkins makes the claim that consumers are directing this process. Media companies do well at adapting to consumer’s technological needs, but when it comes to understanding the “protocols” of users, more specifically, the context of user environment, these same companies often struggle.

It’s worth arguing that media producers have struggled to adapt to the process of convergent culture more so than media consumers. Producers are wary to negotiate and interact with consumers because of the fine line between risk and reward. It is not enough for these producers to understand and accept that the pattern of consumption is always in flux, that consumers are constantly demanding new ways to participate with media. Only when producers accommodate this participation does the process of convergence culture truly work.

 I suggested earlier that cooperation was the basic building block of convergence culture. In knowledge communities, too, cooperation must exist between its members. Information must be processed and debated as theory, and “people work together, put their heads together, in the absence of one person with inside info” (Jenkins 17). The author effectively takes a macro view of the collective intelligence – with the example of the Survivor “spoiler” website – by laying out the conditions on which the group functions as a whole.  

It’s interesting to compare the negative reaction ChillOne received from the “spoiler” community with how consumers are upset or even offended when producers infringe on their participatory culture. He was seen as a rogue, someone who shortened the game of “spoiling”, and thus, his knowledge was discredited by many.  

Interpellating the Buyer

Semiotics is a concept introduced and drawn out by Sturken and Cartwright. Essentially, the concept asserts that all signs are composed of both a signifier (a representation) and a signified (meaning). When images and sounds and language are all combined to form one representation, the task of the viewer becomes more complex. I suggest that the viewer unconsciously regards signifiers on various levels within one representation. A television commercial often employs interplays of image, sound, and text. The more ways in which an image can inhabit a viewer’s senses, the greater likelihood the image has of creating a personal experience for the viewer, which I believe is the highest level of meaning an image can attain.       

 Sturken and Cartwright discuss the viewer interpellation paradox at the beginning of chapter two, which made me think of how some retail websites and online magazines utilize personalized customizations to subtly persuade me that the interface has been designed specifically for me. Amazon.com does this by greeting me by name at the top of their homepage, an indication that I’m a registered member and belong to a community of buyers and sellers. The site ‘speaks’ even further by recommending merchandise I might be interested in buying, all based on past activity. This mechanism acts as a continual, non-invasive dialogue. It serves to accentuate my value as a user. To this end, I am empowered and given a degree of control over the “authoring” process. But what about the paradox? Well, in knowing that the webpage was designed exclusively for the viewer, “the viewer must implicitly understand himself or herself as being a member of a social group that shares codes and conventions through which the image becomes meaningful” (50). In other words, my initial interaction with the website is similar to that of every other Amazon member. For this interpellation process to function, I must recognize that Amazon.com also recognizes other members within the same ideological framework.

            How then do we as viewers achieve individual agency within dominant ideologies? Therein lies the difficulty, I believe. “In Althusser’s terms, we are not so much unique individuals but rather are ‘always already subjects’ – spoken by the ideological discourses into which we are born and in which are asked to find our place (70). The viewer’s individual agency, Althusser argues, has been marginalized. Dominant ideologies dictate viewers as passive subjects, who aren’t given the possibility to recognize and identify themselves as they might prefer. Amazon.com positions me (and every other member) as a “buyer” upon signing in – the site recommends products I may be interested in buying. Why doesn’t the homepage also suggest products I may wish to sell? It can be argued that Amazon’s primary focus (and revenue-producer) is the buyer, not the seller. This design setup is less ideologically relevant for someone like me, who tends to sell more often than buy. Theoretically speaking, I’m required to re-position myself and assume a different social role - that of the seller.