ANiCO - Jenkins Post-Class and Reply to Devon: It's a Big Small World After All

This Post lightly touches upon what we discussed about Jenkins in the aspect of rhizomic realities, Jackson’s last comment in-class about selective globalization, and Devon McGowan’s post, which can be read here: http://s2010cmc300.blogspot.com/2010/03/jenkins-post-class.html

*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~~**~~*~*~*~~**~*~*~*~~*

In Jenkins article, he talks about the rhizomic aspect of reality in the contexts of the internet. As an example he uses fans of a corporate franchise that are able to take the original source material and build, expand, and fill any of Barthes’ “gaps.” Using our new word, I can see these internet’s virtual realities as rhizomic: they self-replicate (as in people will do this of their own accord, because they will reject the idea of a definitive version regulated by corporate media); they are intertextual, so they are extensions of the original and of the self; and they demonstrate connectivity amongst a community.

Jackson made a comment in class about internet globalization being just as selective as real life: you can pick and choose who you trust and interact with. With the same quickness and immediacy one can accesses a forum and spread ideas, one can just as easily press the ignore button. It is part of the human survival instinct that one associates with like-minded people: it would be insincere and unwise to associate with people you don’t like, wouldn’t it? When I think “globalization” I don’t think we’re closer in the sense that we’re all holding hands, communicating with each other, but that we’re more aware that other people exist on this planet and we affect each other regardless of where we are on the map (i.e., the global economic crisis). Although, as what I thought Jackson’s comment was suggesting, we may have become a bit fickle with our trust and communication since it’s easier to ignore people, the internet highway has changed our ideas of reality with the creation of virtual reality. I’m optimistic that as time progresses, this just makes people more open to perspective and possibilities, rather than shut away in our own little worlds.

Finally, I would like to comment on Devon’s post. I am confused when you say:

“We must always keep in mind not to assume that is what is seen as a “right” for us (that being access to the web) is not a right for everyone.”

When you say “right”, do you mean an inalienable right to use the internet? Or right as in what is culturally/socially correct? I ask this because your ideas are unclear and you seem to contradict yourself in two more quotes:

“We as Americans are ultimately the privileged Internet users and if we are to call ourselves “global” citizens we must remember the American way is not the way of the whole world.”

“Likewise, perhaps we should set a goal, as Americans and as critical participants in this 21st century technological boom, that mass accessibility to the Internet should be possible for everyone, not just the few and the privileged.”

First: Accessibility to the internet goes far beyond that just itself. The reason there are many people who cannot participate in this globalization is because they have to have electricity, a computer or phone, wired/wireless telephone access, and other luxuries. They’re not participating because they probably have worse things to worry about, like getting food on the table. If you’re going to use new media to help these people start talking with you, you’ll have to get them up to speed with other super-powered countries, like helping with education, infrastructure, agriculture, and economy. And you can’t even do that without the aid of governments and ridiculous amounts of money that cannot just be simply raised in an online donation drive. There are actually people who MAKE it hard for you to help these smaller countries/groups of under-privileged people.

Second: I feel these two quotes contradict each other. If the “American Way” is not the way of the world and that other cultures should be respected, and the belief that everyone has an inalienable right to the internet is an American Way, would not this goal be pushing an American ideology on other cultures?

I can’t help but think about the case going on with Google vs China. Google has decided not to follow China’s censorship regulations and threats from both sides have been flung. I am shocked: an American corporate giant just deciding it’s going to stop respecting the government of another country? To my knowledge, the American government did not prompt Google to do this. I know internet censorship is a huge issue, and I personally feel that the internet should not be censored, but that is an issue that should be taken upon the people who are using the internet themselves up to the governments around the world, not a corporation that is already trying to monopolize data on the internet. This is an example of what I'm getting at with Americanized ideology infiltrating other cultures by way of the internet: the right of freedom of speech and accesses to information is not the same around the world. Although by way of the internet many silenced citizens of other governments have their voices heard and protest their own censorship, I can't help think pressing our own ideas of what "is right" or "a right" is never a good thing.