Henry Jenkins’s “Convergence Culture:
Where Old and New Media Collide” is primarily concerned with the relationship
of three concepts: media convergence, participatory culture, and collective
intelligence. From the introduction, I gathered that this book directly
connects with the growing trend of analyzing thought processes in a
technologically-driven world. One of the questions that arises from this trend,
as I’ve seen it, goes something like this: “Is a person’s knowledge contained
only within his or her mind, or is it also made up of all the material
knowledge he or she can access, comprehend, and apply?” James Paul Gee brought
up this concept in his book “What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning
and Literacy,” by discussing the Material Intelligence Principle. Though he’s
primarily interested in games and their link to pedagogy, I find that this
Principle, when juxtaposed with Jenkins’s understanding of collective
intelligence, helps bring readers closer to answering questions about
epistemology. Gee writes “In video games, objects and artifacts store some of
the thinking and knowledge a player gains. So, in fact, does the environment
the player moves through” (109). Through my understanding of Gee, I’ve realized
that material intelligence can lead to more abstract and more profound thought.
If our knowledge can reside outside of the mind, perhaps we have more “free
space” (to use a technological term) to do this abstract and deeper thinking.
Gee’s
idea of material intelligence is similar, as I said, to Jenkins’s understanding
of collective intelligence. He explains that the term was coined by French
cybertheorist Pierre Levy, and sums up the definition by saying that “None of
us can know everything; each of us knows something; and we can put the pieces
together if we pool our resources and combine our skills” (4). So, not only
does knowledge reside, as Gee posited, in objects or the environment, but it
also resides within—and can be borrowed from—other people. How does this idea
(that we can borrow knowledge from others) undermine beliefs we’ve held true
for our entire lives? What are the consequences of having an open source of
knowledge?
Jenkins
attempts to examine the issues of knowledge in his first chapter, “Spoiling Survivor: The Anatomy of a Knowledge
Community.” First, he notes that, what I’ll call “Survivor culture”, is a perfect example of convergence: television
and internet (and probably other forms of media) come together to create this
culture of Survivor. I had similar
feelings to this chapter as I had in the beginning of our gaming course: I just
didn’t get it. Why are these people
so invested in something that I don’t really see as being that important?
However, I see now that people are becoming much more invested in things like
gaming and TV shows as we move toward what Jenkins describes as a
“participatory culture,” a process which he describes in the introduction of
his book: “Rather than talking about media producers and consumers as occupying
separate roles, we might now see them as participants who interact with each
other according to a new set of rules that none of us fully understands” (3). The
discussion of Survivor, though the
show is not one I’ve ever watched, was actually very interesting in terms of
the three concepts (media convergence, participatory culture, and collective
intelligence). Jenkins explains, first, that the show is “television for the
Internet age—designed to be discussed, dissected, debated, predicted, and
critiqued” (25). This was interesting to me on a number of levels. First, I
realized that reality TV did create a lot of conversation, but I never thought
that there was much intellectual debate going on in regards to the programs.
However, Jenkins changed my mind by the end of the chapter—obviously there was
a lot more going on than meets the eye, which I imagine happens in most
convergent culture.
Though
the middle part of the chapter was more about the dynamics of game play (both
in “reality” show and in actual reality), the end of the chapter brings the
reader back to the idea of collective intelligence and contrasts it with Peter
Walsh’s “expert paradigm.” Jenkins
describes some of the main differences: the expert paradigm requires a “bounded
body of knowledge, which an individual can master” (52), while on the other
hand the collective intelligence doesn’t necessarily require special training,
and I think that’s the point. A number of skills and knowledge sets come
together to create a sum that is greater than it’s parts… perhaps something
that can never occur through an expert paradigm, as there is always something
else to know. Furthermore, the expert paradigm creates and “exterior and
interior,” which I imagine fosters a sense of elitism. Through his look at Survivor, Jenkins provides readers with
an overview of his three aspects as well as a deeper understanding of
collective intelligence.
Questions:
1. What are
the merits of the expert paradigm over collective intelligence?
2. Is there
a right to not know?
3. In what
ways has “convergence culture” changed since the publication of Jenkins’s book?
No comments:
Post a Comment