The Internet is a technology based on control systems, yet it is also a mass medium celebrated as fostering personal and political freedom. How? Why? What dreams and desires drove the Internet’s transformation from a communications network used mainly by academics and the military to an integral part of everyday life? And how does the experience of actually using the Internet differ from the hype that surrounds it?
Freedom makes control possible, necessary, and never enough
Yet there is some common ground across the online understanding of what Britishness is. Our empirical understanding of this has evolved through reverse logic: researchers have studied British identity in forums, social networks and other virtual gathering spots by looking at how we decide what we are not. And despite the very prominent multiculturalism in the UK, the unfortunate thread that runs through the results of research studies published as recently as 2008 is that Britishness is "white" – seen as the most common marker of what is perceived to be British and what is not.
But it isn't the end of the story. There are countless examples of sites that celebrate our obsession with the weather, our penchant for satire, our co-dependent relationship with the pub and other elements of national heritage. The web allows for the expression of the diversity of the UK and the nuanced representation of the people united under the union flag does still inform how we negotiate and define who we are online.
Citizenship is a political demarcation; the sense of identifying with one's nation is a profoundly personal thing. We're not becoming more or less British because of the web, just as Americans aren't becoming more or less American or Iranians aren't becoming more or less Iranian. Technology allows each of us the opportunity to publish our versions of what it means to be whatever we are.
If you don't agree with it, you can build your own version. So there.
There are loads of theories that could be linked in here: Judith Butler and Identity performance, Charles Cheung and personal homepages, Dan Gillmor "giving a voice to the voiceless" etc.
Here is a link to a music industry blog http://musicindustrysectionb.blogspot.com/ provided by one of the examiners from the AS key concepts exam. It contains a range of examples that could be drawn upon in the exam - esp. Mercury records stopping production of the CD and operating online only. The Gorrilaz using the Apple IPad to produce their music and Lily Allen engaging in viral marketing.G325 Critical Perspectives in Media General Comments
There were 387 candidates entered for this January series. The level of difficulty was appropriate but some candidates were not well prepared to answer all three questions and this is often the case where candidates are taking this synoptic paper for the first time some six months before the majority of entrants for the unit.
There was a marked improvement in the level of responses, in comparison to the previous two series. It is difficult for candidates to sustain the required level of theoretical engagement for level 4 marks over the three sections and some centres had clearly prepared candidates well to write about ALL of the concepts and areas of activity that might be required for questions 1a and 1b in relation to ALL of their coursework, so that they were able to respond to the specific requirements of the questions. As has been previously stated in examiner reports, at training events and on the OCR blog, the fact that there is one A2 examination only, and a part of that is related to coursework, mean that the level of expectation from examiners is high in relation to theoretical conviction and so a level 4 candidate will need to sustain this conviction over the span of the three responses – theorising a specific aspect of their own production processes, analysing their own outcomes using a specific key concept and discussing a contemporary media issue with the use of a range of theoretical arguments.
As in previous series, many of the candidates who achieved higher overall marks for the paper chose to answer section B first.
Section A
1.The question on digital technology appeared to support candidates in finding a range of examples and the better answers reflected critically on the difference digital technology actually made to creative outcomes. This was the strongest set of responses since the introduction of this unit, with the better answers dealing with well chosen examples which ranged across hardware, software and online activity and began to connect these to discuss how they synthesized. The higher achieving answers related clearly candidates’ decisions to the creative potential of digital media. Less accomplished responses tended to fall into two categories – those that were confused about digital technology itself (often simply describing the use of the camera) and those that merely listed examples of technology used without sufficient analysis of how these affordances led to particular kinds of creativity that might not have been possible with analogue processes or with non-technical activities. Where candidates were able to document a journey over time, either in terms of more advanced use of technology or simply making more use of technology in A2, the higher mark bands were accessible. This was extremely difficult for candidates who were only able to speculate on future A2 work as they had not yet completed their coursework – examiners cannot credit this kind of response in a synoptic paper. Level 4 answers typically defined creativity, with references to theoretical work on this much-debated and contested area (for example, Gauntlett, Buckingham, Craft, Csikszentmihalyi, Readman) and then went on to ‘apply’ these definitions to their own use of technologies with a range of specific examples – from how web 2.0 platforms allow the consumer (arguably) to become the producer to identifying particular uses of software such as Final Cut or Dreamweaver that allowed candidates to achieve outcomes that were not possible with simpler software such as iMovie (in the case of video editing). Either, or both, of these approaches allow examiners to award higher marks as long as there is sufficient evidence of critical reflection and evaluation – for which a ‘model’ like Kolb’s cycle might be helpful.
2. Narrative was handled fairly well by most candidates, often applying one or two ‘classic’ theoretical models from formalist / structuralist approaches to their own work – character types (Propp), equilibrium and disruption (Todorov), action and enigma (Roland Barthes), semiotic codes (Roland Barthes) and ‘the gaze’ (Laura Mulvey). The choice of text to analyse is very important in question 1b and in some cases examiners were surprised with the choices made in this regard (for example, writing about a film in 1a and a magazine in 1b). Some made a brave stab at applying the theory to print based texts, but tended to fall back more on semiotics or genre. Whilst there is no reason why a magazine or a website cannot be a rich text for narrative theory, it would seem more straightforward at A2 level for candidates to make use of the plethora of theories of film narrative at both micro (edits and continuity decisions) and macro (storytelling and culture) levels. Many candidates were able to accurately reference narrative theories – Propp and Todorov, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Goodwin and Mulvey were well described, with some very strong analyses of radio news work and of film trailers and openings. Level 4 answers were those that successfully related these theories to elements of candidates’ own texts. Weak answers were often just an account of “how we made it” but stronger answers were able to apply some critical distance. In some cases there was even too much theory (with unsupported references to Fiske and Adorno) with little, if any, analysis of their own (in cases not yet completed) coursework.
Once again, time management was a factor and it is crucial that candidates devote the same total time to section A as to B as both sections carry equal marks.
Section B
Media in the Online Age – this was the weakest topic with a general lack of theory – see the comments on regulation, the same applies (I've included this at the end of the post). At the very least, centres are advised to look at the recent debates between Jenkins, Buckingham and Gauntlett – all of which are free and accessible online, in the context of claims made by the likes of Gillmor, Leadbetter, Wesch and Shirkey – for a more academic approach to the difference the internet has made to media. A lot of the answers were a set of opinions and ‘everyday’ observations about iTunes, piracy and social media, but in some cases some sustained case study work on music was well supported with a range of examples. For this topic in particular, candidates would be well advised to ‘audit’ their answers to consider how much of them could have been written by a person with a keen interest in media but without the knowledge and understanding from an A Level course in the subject.
Contemporary Media Regulation – this was a very popular topic and there was a high level of engagement with issues of protection and democracy, but there were some common lapses. Many film and TV references were too dated – even one historical reference would suffice, with all other examples from within five years of the time of writing. Other media areas tended to be answered with a more contemporary flavour, so centres are advised to be careful not to over- use dated (if ‘classic’) case studies for film and TV. As always, the James Bulger case was usually poorly handled with insufficient attention given to the complexity of this case and a lack of justification for its use in the context of an answer on contemporary media regulation. Centres are strongly advised to use this case as a historical reference in the context of Martin Barker’s work on how it was constructed as a ‘moral panic’, not as an example of media effects and thus as ‘evidence’ for the need for regulation. Regulation of computer games, with case studies, was often handled well. The difficulties of regulating the internet were tackled, with some success by many and the stronger candidates dealing with the ‘weightier’ political issues around wikileaks and democracy / security as well as the more straightforward debates around piracy and child protection, but too often candidates addressed the issue briefly, explaining how difficult it will always be to regulate the internet, and leaving it at that. There were many superficial observations around the press ‘not being regulated’ and for this reason the regulation of the press was often the weakest part of these answers. Examiners were, once again, surprised that the Byron Report – a hugely significant contemporary example – was rarely mentioned (the link to this is in our blog). In addition, centres are reminded that candidates need to balance their understanding of contemporary issues and examples with a discussion of academic theories of effects, audience and participation that inform their engagement with the debates in question. Whether there needs to be more or less media regulation depends on the view one takes on the relationship between media and society and there is a long history of research and theory – from Chomsky to Hall to Livingstone to Jenkins - that must be understood at A2 level if candidates are to answer the questions from an informed intellectual position.
I remember several years ago, when the virtual world Second Life wasthe thing on the web, wandering in the embodiment of my avatar through a most extraordinary representation of a cathedral. The frescoes, stained glass and flying buttresses were replicated to a degree that would make even the most cynical architect weep. Also enjoying the experience were 30 other virtual people from around the world, dressed in all manner of outerwear, from 1950s party dresses to slinky black outfits with impossible heels to squirrel costumes. They, as it turned out, were gathered in this cyber-place to celebrate a religious service.
I watched from the safe distance of a back-of-the-nave pew, listening to the officiant lead his digital flock through a very traditional Catholic ceremony. I left after transubstantiation, just as they were processing in a typically sombre way to receive the Eucharist.
The concept of religious ritual is so deeply embedded in our social fabric that it is natural for it to have made the leap to virtuality. And it hasn't just reared its head in worlds such as Second Life. Social networks, including Facebook, have active and close-knit communities of religious followers of all creeds, gathering in what science writer Margaret Wertheim described in her 1999 book, The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, as "a new kind of realm for the mind". Perhaps, depending on your attitude toreligion, it's more apt to describe these digital collectives in science fiction author William Gibson's words: a "consensual hallucination".
Online, contrary to Nietzsche's allegation, God is most certainly not dead. The web is littered with sacred spaces and, if anything, He (or She or It) has been released from traditional doctrine to become everything to everybody.
"On the web, you're more easily able to find your tribe," explains Professor Heidi Campbell, a researcher at Texas A&M University, whose most recent book, When Religion Meets New Media, looks at how Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Jewish communities engage with the web. "The distinctions and differences are amplified online."
The importance of the web in everyday life – from banking to shopping to socialising – means that religious organisations must migrate their churches and temples to virtual real estate in order to stay relevant and to be where the people are. Religious leaders have websites, blogs and Twitter feeds, there are email prayer lines and online confessionals, social networks for yogis and apps that call the faithful to prayer. "Being web-savvy should be a required skill for religious leaders in general," says Sister Catherine Wybourne, prioress of the Holy Trinity Monastery in Oxfordshire, and @Digitalnun on Twitter.
But, argues Dr Paul Teusner from RMIT University, Melbourne, the technology itself is not value-free. "It is presented to religious societies wrapped with cultural values that compliment, challenge or repel religious attitudes," he says. This has unsurprisingly affected how organised religion engages with the new "mission field", as the Vatican has described it. Evangelicals, who have historically been keen to get out their message via whatever communication conduit available, were the first organised religious groups to embrace the web, and non-traditional or sidelined religious movements made early moves online to get their version of "the word" out. In contrast, Islam and Catholicism, which both place an emphasis on shared place in their rituals and view the technology as a mode of logic that could take them in its value direction, have been the most hesitant. "The web may have encouraged a lowest-common-denominator eclecticism and turned us into consumers of religion," argues Wybourne.
There's another potentially destabilising force at work: what has traditionally been behind closed doors in ecclesiastical councils is now online, challenging the control that leaders once had over doctrine and their flocks. Just as the Reformation was ushered in by the printing press in the 16th century, allowing people to access the texts for themselves and distribute their interpretations widely, the web has helped proliferate different interpretations and articulations of religions and we have witnessed the emergence of new communities and faiths. Individuals now have a much more autonomous role in deciding whom to approach as a source. "Those people may have official, traditional credentials or they may be Rabbi Google," says Prof Campbell.
"Religious leaders will have to get used to the idea of being more accountable and transparent in their dealings and of having to engage, on equal terms, with those who stand outside the traditional hierarchies," says Wybourne.
Yet the web has not de facto increased inter-faith communication. Campbell has observed that the internet is not being used for inter-religious dialogue or diversity. "If you want to do that, you need intensively to create that community." The impulse to specialise because of the volume of information online means that people seeking answers are drawn to flocks of birds that match their feathers. "Unless you're looking for diversity, you're not going to find it online," says Campbell.
The search for answers is part of our social narrative and so it is unsurprising that we have gone to the web to ask the questions. There, we are finding our communities, whether they are organised under a traditional doctrine with well-established rituals, or are evolutions that have been produced by people who feel they have seen the light. The greatest danger of the web is not that it will kill or change religion, but that, as Campbell argues, we will see the differences in our faiths because of our desire to find our own kind.
TAKEN FROM THE GUARDIAN ARPIL 17TH 2011.
