The subject of this week’s lecture
was cultures of convergence. We
talked about the different approaches to- and uses of “convergence” as a
theoretical concept to analyze from a cultural studies point of view, and as a
corporate or grass roots strategy. This blogpost will deal with the different
understandings of the term convergence and how it can be related to
globalization, media imperialism and the digital creative economy. The
literature we had to read offers various arguments and insights in regards to
convergence and the different situations in which the term is applied to
describe certain developments. Following an exploration of what convergence as
term can describe, we will critically assess some arguments and statements that
are presented in the articles by Jenkins (2006) and Latzer (2013).
The term (media)
convergence is “customarily used to describe the dissolving distinctions
between media systems, media content and the resulting trade between systems.”[1] Most of Latzer’s
description of convergence seems to agree with this definition, but he adds
another dimension, namely the insinuation that the processes of changes that
are described by the term lead to “uniformity or union.”[2] Media convergence is,
however, not an endpoint. Rather, says Jenkins, it is “an ongoing process occurring at
various intersections between media technologies, industries, content, and
audiences.”[3]
According to Jenkins this uniformity or union is not only unreachable; it is
undesirable as well, especially because of the ambiguity that is inherent to
convergence. The digital creative economy that emerged in the 1990s with the
arrival of public access to the World Wide Web should therefore continue to be analyzed.
Uniformity or union is not a goal of convergence, nor can it ever be
an ‘end result’. Rather, as Jenkins argues, it is essential to see convergence
as a continuing process of decontextualization and recontextualization. The
flow of media content is multidirectional, since geographically differentiated
(sub-) cultures have access to the same content, which then results in an
arbitrary understanding of media content as meaning-holding texts.[4] This is why we argue it is
of great importance to make a connection with media imperialism, which will be
the subject of the next paragraphs.
Media imperialism is a
term closely related to convergence, as it is used to describe and analyze
changing structures in the field of media production and consumption on a
global level, mainly focusing on the role of western culture. Hence the coinciding
term “cultural imperialism”, which is used by Hesmondalgh (2013) to describe
similar developments in relation to globalization: “[…] the way that the
cultures of less developed countries have been affected by flows of cultural
texts, forms and technologies associated with ‘the West’.”[5] We found, however, that
there are some problems with this approach to undermine the processes at work
on a global level, in relation to media, convergence and the digital creative
economy.
For the industry, Latzer
writes, convergence is “predominantly a strategic objective and a business
challenge.”[6]
As we have discussed during the lecture on cultures of convergence, strategies
are often challenged by ‘tactics’: the consumer or audience offers resistance
towards certain developments, be it products, software updates, or
advertisements (e.g. Adblocker). In other words, the people who are subjects of
change may act according to their own cultural grid. Whereas classic media imperialism
theory argues that the “…flow of goods [is] sufficient to demonstrate the
destruction of cultures”[7], it is these ‘grassroots
tactics’[8] that oppose such
arguments. But, and this is where the problem lies, it is this sort of
hybridity that Jenkins writes about, and which supposedly would bypass
oppositions between the world’s various cultures, that is primarily a corporate
strategy. Furthermore, it is “one [strategy] that comes from a position of
strength rather than vulnerability or marginality, one that seeks to control
rather than contain transcultural consumption.”[9] This, in our eyes,
dismantles the noble sound of the term “grassroots tactics”, which might make
us sound cynical, but this is the other side of the story that the literature
has enabled us to see.
Media convergence
remains to be a term that is surrounded by ambiguity. It brings cultures closer
together, but simultaneously maintains the divide, or so it seems. In order to
specify the arguments made in this blog post, we argue there is a need for
specific case studies, as it would concretize the processes at work in relation
to media convergence. These are things to think about and hopefully it will
come up in the coming lectures.
[1]
Cunningham & Turner (eds). (2010) ‘The Media and Communications in
Australia’. 3rd ed. Sydney: Allen & Unwin: p. 3. Cited in Hartley;
Potts; Cunningham; Flew; Keane; Banks. (2013) Key Concepts in Creative Industries. London: Sage: p. 36.
[2]
Latzer, Michael. (2013), ‘Media convergence’, in: Ruth Towse & Christian
Handke (eds.), Handbook on the Digital Creative Economy. Cheltenham
& Northampton: Edward Elgar: p. 123.
[3]
Jenkins, Henry. (2006), ‘Pop
Cosmopolitanism: Mapping Cultural Flows in an Age of Media Convergence’,
in: Fans, Bloggers and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New
York & London: New York University Press: p. 154.
[4] Ibid: p. 154.
[6] Latzer. (2013): p. 124.
[7] Jenkins. (2006): p. 156.
[8] Stevens, Martijn.
Class part of Media Course Creative Industries Radboud
University, September 13th
2016.
[9] Jenkins. (2006): p. 167.
No comments:
Post a Comment