Check out my post on the Digital Anthropology Interest Group’s website. Digital Research Hub.
The BRIDGING DIGITAL AND PHYSICAL PUBLICS: DIGITAL Anthropologists’ CURRENT ENGAGEMENTS WITH 21st CENTURY PUBLICS panel has been accepted!! It is being reviewed by the Society of Visual Anthropology. The panel with include the following papers:
Anastasiya Travina (Texas State University-San Marcos) 500,000 Tweets and Posts During The First Two Hours Of The London Olympics: Does IT Mean The Olympics Is A Universally Lauded Event?
Meghan M Ferriter (Smithsonian Institution Archives) “It Boils Down to Respect”: Defining the Values of a Fandom Through Conflict Online
Sarah Elaine Dillard Mitchell (Indiana University, Department of Anthropology) TIFF’s Immediate and Mediated Public: Social Media, Public Relations, and the Economies of Talk At the Toronto International Film Festival
Michael P. Oman-Reagan (Hunter College of the City University of New York) Occupying Cyberspace: Indonesian Cyberactivism and Occupy Wall Street
Laura C Jarvis (Southern Methodist University) Facebook Or Face-to-Face: Studying Youth In and Out of the Field
Sarah S Ono (Department of Veteran Affairs) By the Time We Get to the Station Will the Train Already Have Left?: Keeping Up With New Media in the Public Sector
Alissa Beth Kaplan Soto (Hunter College) Women’s Autonomy Through Self-Insemination and Cyberspace
Congratulations and Thank You to all the panel participants and DANG!
Check Us Out on the 112th Annual AAA Conference!
Check out the Digital Anthropology Call for Papers: Call for Papers: Digital Anthropologists’ Current Engagements with 21st Century Publics.
Google calls Internet users to Take Action
“it is ours and it is free
a free and open world
depends on a free and open web
and a free and open web depends on me” (Google’s Internet Poem)
A free and open internet is essential to democracy in the 21st century just as freedom of speech and freedom of press were essential to the founding father of the United States of America.
On the Internet we are free and we are equal. A sea of voices from all over the earth pour forth, and those voices, those ideas are judged for their worth, for their ability to resonate in the hearts and imaginations of others.
I know sometimes this means absurdly ridiculous things become wildly popular, but that just means that sometimes we (collectively) need absurdly ridiculous things in our lives. The Internet is a collective expression of our humanity. Yes, sometimes things get out of hand and people say horrible things to one another, but sometimes people are also able to truly come together and help each other out. A free and open Internet contains all our flaws and all our potential. Don’t allow politicians to in act policies which will quash our collective potential simply out of fear of our flaws.
Wikipedia is currently in fundraiser mode. It reminds of the PBS phone-a-thons of my childhood. But it also reminds me of an interesting component people frequently neglect when discussing social programs and taxes in relation to institutions seen as a “public good.” In the debate over who does a better job of address the needs of the public, the arguments are frequently framed in Public vs Private…. what about the 3rd option of non-profit/charity? Websites like Facebook, twitter, Gmail, etc are free because they’ve figured out how to profit from data mining and running ads, while other sites like Wikipedia rely on user donations. Comparing Wikipedia and the Recovery.gov site which the government spent over $9.5 million to redesign, makes me wonder if discussions on government spending should be aimed at government vs non-profit rather than Public vs Private.
Most people I’ve talked to about this in person tend to point out that most people won’t give willingly unless the government makes them. But I have to wonder is this true? Am I being too much of an idealist? I know I prefer to directly donate $15 to an institution than have an additional $20 added on to my taxes. Of course, I’m somewhat assume that at least $5 is lost in the bureaucracy it would take to get my $15 to Wikipedia if Congress decided to financially support Wikipedia. Something I know will never happen, but the thought experiment is still the same.
This brings up a few questions for me. Is it feasible to run all Open Access on a Wikipedia model or fundraising and user donations? Is the model somehow better suited for the Internet? I’d love to know if anyone has come across studies comparing Private, Public (government), AND Non-Profit models for providing public goods and services.
While it is frequently difficult to identify paradigm shifts as they are happening, I believe I stumbled upon one tonight. My boyfriend, Greg Wright, was telling me about this fascinating new project he discovered that will allow people to interact and play RPGs online in the dynamic new way in a world that is ultimately the players creation. He found this project through a fascinating site called kickstarter, which allows people to share their creative new projects and to follow and fund creative projects posted by others. Through a system which in many ways mirrors the concept behind microloans, creative entrepreneurs of the 21st-century are funded not by banks, corporations, investment firms, or entrepreneurial capitalist, but instead individual cyber citizens from around the globe. Each project sets a minimum required budget and posts what might be called a “business plan” which includes project related incentives promised each backer according to the financial pledge made. Individuals can make small donations, most have a minimum of $1, or people can make substantial donations and become more directly involved in the project. This site allows new business ideas a to flourish or parish based on their ability to convince other people on the Internet of the value of their idea and the utility of the project.
Hearing about the site reminded me of how growing up during the birth of the digital age my generation received innumerable speeches about how we would all be working in “jobs that the yet to be created.” In my previous blog post, I wrote about the frustration felt by many in my generation about the failure of this promise to manifest immediately upon graduating from college and how in my opinion the occupied movement is a manifestation of my generation’s frustration at this failure and what is even many of the failure of the capital system. My immediate response to hearing about Kickstarter was that this was the perfect springboard for all of those promised “jobs that have yet to be created” that I generation grew up expecting to make into their careers.
If the occupy movement is a global declaration of the “problem,” then the idea behind kickstarter is the solution. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the specific website is the only solution. However, the same way that eBay and its partner PayPal revolutionized online sales, kickstarter’s application of Kiva’s microloans system to creative projects offers creative individuals a means of turning cyber capital into the financial backing necessary for taking projects from imagination to innovation. In this, I see the paradigm shift which might be categorized as being post-capitalist. the paradigm shift being generated by the cyber market is not Marxist or Socialist because individuals and companies are definitely capable of making substantial profits. However, the global reality of cyberspace has left governments struggling to keep legislation up to date as evidenced by the recent attempts in the United States (SOPA, PIPA) and the international treaty (ACTA) to legislate against piracy. Cyberspace has its own morality and self-governing mechanisms which it seems only “digital natives” understand. cyber capital is intrinsically linked to the ability of a the website, idea, video, picture, or phrase to “go viral.” going viral can have either a positive or negative impact through the equivalent of the social sanctions of honor and shame. While many people tend to dismiss things happening online as “not real,” viral honor and viral shame can have extremely real world implications. In the United States, News/Media outlets and general public were focused to acknowledge the “real world” implications of cyber events during the chain reaction of cyber-bullying leading to suicides which led to the It Gets Better movement and the passing of cyber-bullying laws. But there are other concrete examples such as the temporary stock crash of AT&T, KONY2012, Clint McCance, even the importance of the youth vote and Obama Girl to Obama’s election.
While that guy from the KONY 2012 video miscalculated when saying, “there are more people on facebook today, than were on the planet 200 years ago” that doesn’t mean powerful idea he was trying to monoplize on was incorrect. The human race is infinitely more connected today despite our ever growing population recently hitting 7 Billion. Digital communication is so much faster, and frequently more reliable, than the News. This has actually led to the News reporting about what is being said and done online. However, the importance of cyberspace, digital communication, and social networking can no longer be ignored or dismissed as a passing childhood phase. Cyber capital generated by viral honor and viral shame shapes our lives in very real ways. As more and more people are finding ways to “make a living” in cyberspace this is one subsistence pattern which can no longer be ignored. This paradigm shifting subsistence pattern is post-capitalism or at the very least post-neoliberalism. In honor of its importance to the digital age and the because its value system is one of the core cultural value of cyberspace, I suggest we call this new way of getting things done OpenSource-Capitalism. After all people are still making money… eventually, but this isn’t your father’s capitalism.
I’ve been having a case of writer’s block all day… That is to say, I’ve already written 3 posts on my blogs and started planning a new project for my boyfriend and I to work on this summer. So, I’ll admit I’m a bit of a multitasker but who isn’t these days.
So now, instead of actually getting down to business I’m writing another blog post. But this time I actually have productivity in mind. I’m going to do an experiment for my next post. The section of my paper I’ve been trying to finish for the past 24 hours, should be fairly easy to write because it is something I know a lot about. So as a sort of “free writing” meets blogging experiment, I’m going to trying writing this section of my paper as a blog entry and see if it frees up my writers block. If if it works out well, I may be on to something very useful for my fieldwork and dissertation writing.
This video is a little old, in internet terms at least. It came out in 2007 while I was still in undergrad. The video was made before college graduates of class of 2009 entered “the real world” to find by in large there was no place for them. Here’s an old news report about it on ABC News.
The economic crisis hit home, when college graduates all across the nation realized there were no jobs waiting on them. One of the outdated messages in this film says “when I graduate I will probably have a job that do not exist today,” it was a line we were told repeatedly growing up. In many ways, at the time at least, that statement seemed like the promise of tomorrow, the promise of a technological future. However, we graduated and found those promised jobs we worked so hard for through high school and college, they still don’t exist. I am not personally involved in any of the Occupy Movements, but as an anthropologist and a person that has lived through this moment in time, I’d like to point to this as the explanation and cause. You can blame us I suppose if it makes you feel better, but anyone with a 21st century college degree isn’t lazy, dumb, or “whinny.” College graduates of 2009, 2010, 2011, and those soon to graduate in 2012 worked hard fulfilling their obligation to Weber’s the “Protestant Work Ethic”. Just to be admitted to college, young people of the 21st century were taught how to jump through many hoops our parents and grandparents never faced and arguably could not have passed even as adults. We emerged from the “No Child Left Behind” Era labeled as “over achievers” in spite of ourselves. If you don’t want to believe my biased insider view, the emic view for anthropologists, then that is fine: check out Alexandra Robbins’ book The Overachievers or at least consider the New York Times book review of it.
Seven years down the road, I’d say we’ve fallen from grace because no matter what degree of concern adults expressed over the negative repercussions of this “overachieverness,” they were proud. Sure it was a sign of neurosis on the national level but, hey, we were excelling at the hard-work end of the American Dream, surely it would pay off. Yet seven years later, we are being depicted as throwing a nation-wide temper-tantrum. Foxnews labels it a “passing outburst” in this online report and it is only one among many. Even those who try to take the middle road seem to either find the movement unreasonable or totally missing the point. In a Forbes article written to explain the movement to its readers, Peter Cohan proves he missed the point in this statement arguing for OWS activist to meet corporations in the middle, where he writes, “Corporations provide many benefits to society — they use people, capital, and technology to create value for consumers, employees, shareholders, and communities.” He openly, perhaps without realizing it wrote “they use people.” But, I’m getting off point.
My point is that the 2005 overachievers did everything asked and expected of them and more. They graduated in 2009, if you follow the 4 year collegiate model, then faced great difficulty getting jobs, particularly in getting jobs in their chosen field. The United States was in no way unique in this: my first graduate school paper was on a very similar crisis in the Republic of Ireland which pushed many young people to emigrate for work. However, I was one of the lucky ones. I did not get a job in my field but I did find a graduate program, which I began in the fall of 2010. This was not the case for many of my fellow graduates. For those who might think this failure to find work is the result of laziness or a lack of earnest effort, please consider the rate of unemployment from 2009 to 2012 and the fact that most of those who have graduated during the recession are not drawing unemployment because they were students and never were employed at a full time job. There is a gap in time between the lack of employment of college grads in May 2009 and the OWS movement which began in the summer 2011. Despite the global economic crisis, college grads continued to look for work or apply to graduate school/law school/med school or volunteer for non-profit organizations and NGOs. But like everyone else looking for a job, those who found an opening were lucky. When the OWS idea was first proposed it found incredibly fertile ground and the movement spread like wildfire, to mix metaphors. It is my hope and prayer that from the ashes, a new and better America can grow and blossom.
While this movement can in many ways be described most affectionately as organized chaos, the motivation and meaning behind it sends a message of hope for the future of America. In many ways, I think it is time to realize we’ve entered adulthood and had the weight of the world put on our shoulders, but let’s get over the shock, disappointment, frustration, and anger… Collectively, our generation has resources, assets, and skills beyond the wildest imaginations of our parents and grandparents, I want to see us do something. The protests and boycotts across this nation and aboard are evidence of our determination and powerful sense of right and wrong. I am not asking for the protest to end, but I have to think this is only the beginning. I am calling for further collaboration. Corporations and political/governmental organizations utilize think-tanks all the time with dramatic innovative results. We are connected in a way generations before us could not have dreamed of. We’ve occupied the streets, now what? There are plenty of social, political, financial, and environmental issues to go around. Let’s put together an online think-tanks to address them. Why let our intelligence, our education, and the energy of our youth go to waste? Collaboration, especially online collaboration, can take place anywhere and anytime (as long as you have power and signal). Why should we wait for anyone else to organize us? Those jobs that we were promised, the ones that don’t exist yet? The only solution is that we have to create them ourselves. Our parents, our teachers, and our government, they can’t really help us with this. So many problems have been put off by those who came before us, and put on to our shoulders. It’s time to face those problems head on. We’ve all got unique and invaluable skill sets and the technology and social networks to make this happen. So pick a topic: social inequality (pick a type), the energy crisis, government encroachment on civil liberties and human rights globally and at home, chronic illness, cancer, HIV, the US health care system, global hunger/malnutrition, debt and balancing the budget (on the personal, household, institutional, and governmental levels), social change toward social accountability and respect of human dignity, citizenship and national boarders, improving US international relations, environmental repercussions of pollution and resource exploitation… the list is endless. Create online discussions of these issues, everyone knows you can occupy and post to blogs and facebook at the same time. Make us of Google Plus’s “hangouts” and really get the conversations going. Make blog post about your ideas, possible solutions, and give each other feedback. After all, everything on the internet is peer-reviewed, so show the world that means something. For the young people who are currently unemployeed, unemployment doesn’t mean you can’t be occupied. Young people still in college, in graduate school, or starting your first job: we have to stay connected, no matter how busy things get. We each have a unique and valuable skill set and set of resources to offer. We have to build for the future, come up with practical solutions and get interdisciplinary with it. A chemist, a political scientist, and a writer could come together and create a whole new way of seeing the world. History shows us the great leaps forward which can be made by a person looking at a problem from more than one angle: Renee Descartes, Johnannes Kepler, Issac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Franz Boas, Albert Schweitzer, Edward Said, Theodore Roosevelt, and Leonardo De Vinci to name a few. We are facing a very important moment in time and a great deal of potential energy has been built up hover now is the time to direct that energy toward creating the type of future we want for ourselves and those who come after us.
Recently the discussion of digital anthropology has really begun to take off. The history of digital anthropology is lined out in Daniel Lande’s blog http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/02/23/on-forming-a-digital-anthropology-group/ Four days ago, Matt Thompson put forward his vision of digital anthropology and pushed for the formation of a digital anthropology interest group within the American Anthropological Association. http://savageminds.org/2012/02/21/alright-how-about-a-digital-anthropology-interest-group/comment-page-1/#comment-718935 The response to this idea has been rather exciting.
From the comments that followed Matt’s blog, it became clear that the term digital anthropology is still rather unclear. Three distinct issues are being encompassed within the concept of Digital Anthropology. The first is anthropology which utilizes digital technology, digital formats, and includes a new form of Public Anthropology which is available on the internet. The second anthropological issue brought up is anthropology which is done digitally or looks at cyberworlds. This is any anthropological research examining video games, online communities, computer-mediated communications (such as blogs, facebook, and instant messengers like skype) and all the rapid social changes and social complications caused by this shift in social realities on a global scale. Daniel Lande addresses this issue and how it was discussed at a recent AAA panel in this blog entry. http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2011/11/28/digital-anthropology-projects-and-platforms/ The third, issue being addressed is Open Access specifically in regards to Open Access publications of anthropological research. This is the issue which I know the least about, having had no personal experience with Open Access beyond the use of Open Office software. There as been a bit of contraversy over the use of Open Access software in anthropological publications and the impact the lack of using it has on libraries. Again Daniel Lande’s blog informs as well as Jason Jackson http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/01/31/american-anthropological-association-takes-public-stand-against-open-access/ and http://jasonbairdjackson.com/2012/02/03/another-world-is-possible-open-folklore-as-library-scholarly-society-partnership/ This controversy, which was spurred by a letter sent by the Executive Director of the AAA, seems to actually be the driving force behind the push to create an interest group for Digital Anthropology within the AAA.
In responses to Matt Thompson’s call for brainstorming on the matter, I am posting my own suggestions for the future of Digital Anthropology. This is partially a re-post of my comments on that blog, but I wanted to put forth both my support of Digital Anthropology and my suggestions for a practical plan for implementing an organizational structure to Digital Anthropology. I situate my own interest in Digital Anthropology in three ways. First and foremost, I am a digital native by all accounts. My first science fair project was written on a computer when I was 9. I got my first email account at 10 (email account = access to most websites, a frequently no adult supervision). Technology was an integral part of my academic career, never turning in a hand written academic paper past the 8th grade. Digital communication and cyberworlds have also greatly influenced my personal as well. Secondly, early in my academic career I conducted research on computer-mediated communication (texts, emails, instant messenger, online forums, facebook, etc). I plan to come back to this research later in my career. Finally, the importance of online publication of anthropological research can not be understated. It allows publication and feedback on preliminary findings. It is communicates research findings to the broadest audience possible. From the beginnings of my anthropological research in undergrad, I have utilized online publications to disseminate my research to the general public. The importance of Public Anthropology to the long term impact of anthropological research of utmost importance in my mind. Digital Anthropology allows anthropologists to make an impact beyond the classroom and the possibilities are ever growing.
The possibilities of a Digital Anthropology organization are only limited by the foundations we lay for it at this moment of initiation. With that in mind, one of the first recommendations I would like to make is organizational. In alignment with the principals behind Open Access, Digital anthropology should be organized with the openness and connectedness of the cyberworld. Digital anthropology needs a social networking site which will allow for the free and open discussion of its goals, agendas, and progress. In addition to allowing for social networking between anthropologists interested in both digital anthropology and the anthropology of cyber worlds, this site should include an open forum to discuss the issues relating to both as well as the progress being made in individual projects. Finally, the site could also include a collection of open access publications and links to anthropological blogs. In regards to Daniel Miller’s concern about the American exclusiveness of this project, I find it rather bizarre to imagine a cyber community limited by national boarders. Perhaps, I am examining this question as a digital native rather than as an American Anthropologist, but such limitations would only serve to stunt the growth of this project. Instead, I suggest the digital anthropology community could sponsor an interest group for the AAAs as more of a “delegation” to represent Digital Anthropology’s interests at the AAAs, however, members of the Digital Anthropology community could also form interest groups in other national and regional anthropological associations. Beyond, the goals of Digital Anthropology within academia, the group should also be of value to the general public. After all, writing anthropological blogs has always been about sharing our ideas and knowledge with the world.
1) Social Network Site- open to all anthropologist and other scholars interested in the topic
2) Create a Online Forum connected to the social networking site- this will allow open international discuss of current issue and new ideas/ research findings
3) The site can also be a repository for Digital Anthropology and Anthropology of Cyberworlds- hosts both original posts and links to various blogs
4) Create Professional connections- example Interest Group for AAAs
5) Create a Public Anthropology digital database resource, and promote online publications/blogs as the Public Anthropology of the 21st century
The first question of course is where are we going to get the funding for this website, to that I have no idea. I am grad student and in no position to find a solution to that part of the problem. However, I am very interested in the development of this project. I would love to continue brainstorming as this project develops.
Please share any suggestions and ideas about the future of this project in the comments section.