Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: Chapters 2 & 3

CHAPTER 2

This chapter is called "Youth Culture, Youth Practices." boyd starts by saying that youth practices with technology are not understood, and are assumed to be insignificant and same among all younger participants. She outlines how the terms adolescent and teenager came to be used. Parental fear has been an issue for generations, and the internet is the newest boogie-man. boyd considers research on youth practices to be activist in nature.

I agree with Ito about teen girls being on the cutting edge of mobile text and visual communication. All of the authors have so far advocated for youth's right to agency, creativity, and innovation. I agree wholeheartedly. None have yet discussed the obsessive and often undisciplined use of mobile text and visual communication by these teens. I don't need a study to tell you that teens use text and visual communications apps all day long, starting at 5:30 am and ending at 2:00 am. While the authors are vocal about not hindering teens use and innovation, they haven't discussed the need for minors to be guided in their habits by parents. They see almost any type of supervision as oppressive and stifling.  That's naïve. It is certainly not in the best interest of high school girls to get 3 hours of sleep because they lack the willpower to ignore their technology.



Jenkins talks about his son being an outcast and having an online romantic relationship with a girl in Nebraska.  Sorry, but what?? Come on Jenkins, really? Here, the conversation turns to the difference in internet use by outcasts and popular kids.

boyd conducted studies about parental concern, and found that race was a determining factor more so than age or gender of the child, or even gender of the parent. Jenkins talks about boys becoming men through video games. That is definitely a subculture, not mainstream. They seem not to realize that when you study technology, you get kids who are techies, geeks and gamers.  And those kids don't represent everyone. Also, when boyd talks about bullying, she says there is no more or less bullying because of technology. That is probably true. What she fails to discuss is the pervasiveness of the online bullying. It remains online for all to see, and goes on into the home and weekend life of the child, who formerly would have had down-time and safe haven from the bullying. Now, because of technology, the bullying can follow him home.

The discussion about natives and immigrants is interesting, but at this point they are digging in a little farther than my interest wants to follow. Discussion using these "loaded metaphors" seems like a stoned conversation. They keep drawing parallels and agreeing with each other, like teens do with song lyrics...It also seems that they see everything as black/white: Adults either fail to participate or overreact. Kids are either bullied or popular, etc. Their conversation is starting to bore me.

Young people do not need adults snooping over their shoulders, but they do need people who can help watch their backs. - Jenkins

boyd says as teens overshare, so do adults. Amen. Then Jenkins talks about sharing with a political agenda, and how valuable that is.

So now, by the end of the chapter, they have stopped taking the black/white stance with teen groups, but still seem to lump all parents together.  Have they considered that the kids they studied lumped them in the group called "adults" and weren't 100% truthful with them? boyd says, "...youth are indeed extraordinarily divers. Their experiences, desires, interests, and values range so wildly that it's often hard to talk about them meaningfully as one thing." Now we're talking. Maybe in the next chapter they will come to the same conclusion about adults and parents as well?

CHAPTER 3

This chapter is called "Gaps and Genres in Participation." Ito begins by talking about which youth participated online, how, and why. She identifies genres of participatoin as entertainment, academic and construction. She sees genres not as fixed but as situational. She also discusses her ideas on hanging out, messing around, and geeking out.

I can say that I have done all three by Ito's definitions. My daughter, on the other hand, does only one, hanging out, constantly, with the rarest of times spent messing around. Once she's found the right filter for her IG photo, the messing around stops, and she goes back to hanging out. I have encouraged her to mess around, given all the time she spends on her phone, but she has no interest. There is value in hanging out, but it can get in the way of other activities because it is so available. Because hanging out goes on 24/7, those kids motivated by belonging want to stay online with the in-crowd (and often have severe FOMO), and find it difficult to stop hanging out. It seems to me that more actual learning goes on while messing around or geeking out.

Ito loses me when she asks: Why "girls tend to gravitate towards more friendship-oriented genres"? Come on. Sometimes, it seems researchers get entrenched in their studies and don't see the bigger picture. Girls generally bond by talking and sharing secrets. Boys generally bond in activities. Does she really not know this? Or is she one of those that thinks these are stereotypical roles that children are force fed?

The Original T-Mobile Sidekick

The digital divide vs. the participation gap: The argument here is that access is close to universal for American youth, yet participation is not equal. The authors argue that if the problem is access, then government should step in, but if the argument is about skills, it is the individual or the community that must take responsibility. Given that barriers to access have been for the most part, removed, it seems the onus is on the individual to participate. Boyd notes that blacks and latinos now participate at a higher rate than whites and asians, and digital media is decidedly lowbrow. Hmm...

Jenkins is heartened that more young people are participating in politics and activism, and says that youth are participating at the same percent regardless of race, at around 35-40%.

Boyd says that the types of activism that are made visible or gain media attention are those of the white middle-class. I disagree. I have seen all sorts of black activism and political participation in the news since the advent of networked participation. I haven't seen the same high visibility action among whites, latinos, or asians.

I like the idea of "nondominant" instead of "at risk" or "disadvanted." Much better terminology.

When they talk about social connections, this becomes tricky. As stated in class, isn't it human nature to stick to one's own? Isn't sticking to one's own what people do when they create groups centered around interests, or sports, or support groups? Why is some group forming labeled good and some labeled bad? Humans do it, no matter what. These folks seem to want to level the playing field to an extent that basic human nature would not allow. People will always find a way to congregate with like-minded others and create norms of ethics and practice within those groups. As long as the barriers to entry aren't divided by nonsense such as race, religion, or color, it seems that all should be fair. Ito talks about the geeks not having high social capital among youth. Youth culture, or any culture, will never give equal value to all.

When people have the option to associate primarily with people with whom they are most in tune, they will tend to do so. It's what Misa Matsuda (2005) called the growth of selective sociability.

Matsuda did not invent that idea. Ito says, "I...fear that we won't see the intergenerational and cross-cultural network development that we need in order to address inequity in participation." Is this something that "we" need to address?

Vlogging, Teens and Literacy: Engaging Youth

Notes: vine, snapchat, genre based approach. We talk about this when we discuss genres. Yes, youth culture is more diverse, because each kid has more choices. And this drives consumption. As the author reminds us, youtube is indeed a business.