Digital Youth Remarks T.J.M. Holden. Panel 3: Digital Difference Sunday, June 22nd 13:00 - 14:30 p.m. Thinking through Difference.

Digital YouthDigital Youth

RemarksT.J.M. Holden

Panel 3: Digital DifferencePanel 3: Digital Difference

Sunday, June 22nd

13:00 - 14:30 p.m.

Thinking throughDifference

About Me, On this PanelAbout Me, On this Panel

Originally I was asked by the organizers to present something at this conference, but . . .

That was kind of like asking Ringo to do a drum solo.

Imagine David Slater as Paul here:“you know, Ringo . . .you could go -- da-dupe, ba-

dupe, da-dupe…”

(Believe me, no one would be duped by that)

About Me, On this PanelAbout Me, On this PanelAnyway . . . once it became clear that I had nothing

to offer, the organizers said: “well, hey . . . There’s always commentary . . . “

Which is why I sit before you in the role of commentator

Soon it should be abundantly clear that they might have been better off with Ringo as a commentator

But, it’s too late to rescind the offerAnd besides, this shouldn’t take longer than your

average Led Zeppelin drum solo

About Me, On this Panel I come to this panel with a number of intellectual

caps:– Communication researcher– Social theorist– Mediated sociologist

My work is primarily situated in Japan, although I also have looked at other Asian countries, such as Malaysia, and Asia in general– Mostly in relation to matters of contextualized

globalization In these comments I will try to don these various

caps

About Me, On this Panel

My claim to inclusion, perhaps, was a chapter in a book on “Global Youth Culture” (2007)

There I presented an ethnography of youth cell phone use in Japan

I dubbed these users “adolechnics”– Users with clearly distinguished differences from other

mobile phone users in Japan

and presented the multiple ways that keitai worked to mediate identity– Mobile phones served to nurture and advance their

difference

Adolechnics’ 4 Levels of “globality”In concluding, I theorized 4 “levels” of

youth mobile phone use vis-à-vis globalization:– The Macro-Global– The Global-Local– The Micro-Global– The Micro-Local

The Macro-Global

keitai simultaneously connects adolechnics to larger social, political, economic and moral worlds;

above all:– the consumer-capitalist economy, and– the popular cultural realm.

The Global-Local

While adolechnics actively engage in consumption via mobile phones . . .

they consume without being overly consumed with the idea of consuming.

They share the joy of consumption:– with mutually linked, though independent,

consumers– All engaged in identical acts of consumption.

The Micro-Global Adolechnics devote considerable time teaching

one another:– how to belong to their groups– what it means to be a young adult-in-the-making– to be a consumer of popular culture– to become a member of an economic and cultural sub-

group within society.

So much of adolechnic behavior can be understood as a process of mutual instruction and learning, reinforcing, integrating, connecting, group-forming.

The Micro-Local Adolechnics exist in atomized capacity – as

individuals. They wield keitai as a means of defining self and

expressing agency. For the adolechnic, the private social worlds that

they create are amae-ful Through the acceptance of others, each individual is

empowered to be:– Optimistic– Inquisitive– Playful– Trusting– Externally-oriented– and pro-actively social.

About this PanelAbout this Panel

Well, enough about ME!

As for this panel . . .

The common name associated with digital -- anything -- in academic discourse this past decade has been “divide”

The fact that this panel consciously selected a moniker of difference in association with “digital” cannot be missed and should not be minimized

About DividesAbout Divides

“Divide” meant a schism Often defined by race, age, gender, or

geographic location And this worked to organize research for over

a decade showing the various “divides” and “secondary divides” in place, in particular, between:– Nations North and South– Between nations in a region (for instance,

in Asia)– Within any one country (for instance, the

US or Japan)

Typing Divides (DiMaggio and Hargittai [2001]) 1. Technical means (software, hardware,

connectivity quality);2. Autonomy of use (location of access,

freedom to use the medium for one's preferred activities);

3. Use patterns (types of uses of the Internet);4. Social support networks (availability of

others one can turn to for assistance with use, size of networks to encourage use);

5. Skill (one's ability to use the medium effectively).

Typing Divides

In my earlier work on adolechnics, all 5 of these elements appeared in youth mobile behavior

– Denoting not so much a “divide” as points of demonstrable difference

– It is this theme that I wish to emphasize as I move through the rest of these comments

Typing Divides (Norris [2001])

3 Levels:1. the global divide

– encompasses differences among industrialized and lesser developed nations;

2. the social divide– points to inequalities among the population

within one nation; and3. A democratic divide

– refers to the differences among those who do and do not use digital technologies to engage and participate in public life.

Embodied Divides

We see these divides in each of the works on this panel, by turns.

For instance: Hjorth’s work points us toward the “global

divide”Qiu’s work underscores the “social divide”Cleveland’s work helps us explore the

“democratic divide”.

Comparative Divides IComparative Divides I

Much work on digital divides has been comparative-- as we saw in the work of Lin and Jung, yesterday

Comparative Divides IComparative Divides I

Ishii and Wu (2006) compared Taiwanese and Japanese youth– Taiwanese youth use the Internet to a

much greater extent than Japanese youth– even though broadband services are

cheaper and faster in Japan– Japanese youth use text-messaging

services featured on mobile phones more than their Taiwanese counterparts.

Comparing Divides IComparing Divides I

While Taiwan has developed a unique BBS (bulletin board system) culture, Taiwanese have a comparatively stronger degree of trust in the Internet than the Japanese.

The Internet culture in Japan is more individualized.

Japanese adolescents and young adults tend to avoid direct communication, resulting in the promotion of a unique mobile media culture among the Japanese youth.

Comparative Divides I Comparative Divides I

The findings suggest that:despite the worldwide standardization

of communication technologiesthe two countries have created

different media trends for their youthdue to culturally different personal

relationship patterns

Comparative Divides IIComparative Divides II

Comparing three “high-access countries” in East Asia – Japan, South Korea and Singapore -- Ono (2005) found that:– inequality in ICT access, use and skills

reflects pre-existing inequality in other areas of economy and society in the three countries.

– Not all of which are the same in the 3 countries

Comparative Divides IISpecifically: In Japan and South Korea, women are less

likely to use computers and the Internet than men.

In Singapore, gender inequality is less pronounced, but the separation between the users and the non-users by education and income is considerably larger than in the other two countries.

Moreover, there is a clear divide across demographic groups when it comes to its actual usage. – Access therefore does not translate into usage in

these three countries

Japan’s Secondary DivideJapan’s Secondary Divide

Japan’s Secondary DivideJapan’s Secondary Divide

The previous graph shows the breakdown of demographic usage of the internet.– Over the last six years, almost all age

groups have increased their share of total home PC access

– SAVE FOR 20 year-olds, whose share DROPPED from 23.6% to 11.9%

Summarizing About DividesSummarizing About Divides

In short:– Divides exist– They can be evaluated in numerous ways– They differ both within and across

countriesThis is especially true in Asia where there is

great variation in economic, political, social, and ethnic configuration

– There seems to be a need for further conceptualization of digital phenomena

The “Difference” DifferenceThe “Difference” Difference

Rather than a divide, the idea of difference takes the emphasis away from schism -- conflict or disjuncture.

The emphasis is on characteristics associated with use or non-use– Certainly, some of this may be embodied in

geographic location, racial characteristics, gender, and economic condition.

– And by comparing the papers by Mouri and Wu (yesterday) we can easily appreciate the differences in use of mobile between Japan and Taiwan

The “Difference” DifferenceThe “Difference” Difference

And each of these latter elements we saw in our papers this session

However, the emphasis on difference opens up analysis:– In ways that “schism” might not– And in more positive ways

The “Difference” DifferenceThe “Difference” Difference

For instance:in Cleveland’s emphasis on how racial

imagery services a more subversive, less reactionary political agenda– This evinces society’s complex

“sectoral” organization, that enables two “contradictory” elements to stand side by side, at once.Something that we all puzzled through

yesterday and heard a partial answer from in Davidson’s paper

The “Difference” DifferenceThe “Difference” DifferenceFor instance:

in Hjorth’s highlighting of a particular user group, which opens into a discussion of intimacy– A key feature of other work on cell phone (I.e. Ito

[2005]) – But a larger feature of Japanese media, a I have

shown in my work on television

Where Hjorth’s work is significant is in demonstrating the unique forms that intimacy can take in this particular user group– Thus, while intimacy may be a central feature of all

Japanese media, it is liberated in unique ways by this particular medium for this particular user group

The “Difference” DifferenceFor Instance: While Qiu’s paper accentuates the economic . . among

his “have-nots” are non-economically delineated social groups:– school drop-outs– rural children left behind by their migrant-worker

parents– Ethnic-minority youth– Female Internet dropouts

Certainly, the economic is the key analytic sector, with: – young migrant workers– students from low-income families

Yet, all groups he covers possess social definitions that distinguish them, and (differentially) locate them in socio-political space

The Digital DifferenceThe Digital Difference

One aspect of difference that we all must appreciate (and which authors generally do) is that not everything digital means “keitai”.– One example is Qiu’s emphasis on “e-

conomy” which, he is clear, is not only about cell phones.online gaming is included

Differences in “Digital” Differences in “Digital” DifferenceDifferenceWhile cell phone has been the dominant

interpretation of “digital” in the literature, as well as the papers this week-end, we should recognize that there are various incarnations;

Most importantly:– the Internet– Webcam/video chat– Role-playing games– Ipod/MP3– Portable game players

Analytic DifferenceAnalytic Difference

Although some devices share certain functions

Others demand different assessments based on how the devices interact with, in particular,– Psychological,– Social-psychological,– Social

dimensions of human orientation and behavior.

Analytic DifferenceAnalytic Difference

Thus, in assessing these papers I would ask that we also recognize the following “difference-makers” in tendering analysis about “digitization in contemporary life”:

“Digital demands” “Digital capabilities” “Digital opportunities” “Digital influence” “Digital response”

And that these 5 aspects may/will likely differ depending on the particular device (digital medium) under study

Analytic Difference:Analytic Difference:Public versus PrivatePublic versus PrivateAnother important distinction in certain analyses is the

use of digital devices in public versus private– For instance, engaging in good night pillow talk

by phone may differ from talking by phone as one walks down the street

– Listening to an MP3 on the train can be socially distancing (and interpretable as such); doing the same thing in one’s own room ought not be viewed the same way

A simple observation is that this is one role (and a justification) for ethnography: to establish and concretize such differences

Analytic Difference:Analytic Difference:Place and Mode of UsePlace and Mode of Use

The difference in use suggests that the same digital device might be capable of producing different social outcomes Based on its place of use As well as its manner of use

Differences that we saw outlined in the research reported by, among others, Galbraith and also Manabe.

Analytic Difference:Analytic Difference:Public versus PrivatePublic versus PrivateIn certain cases, with certain devices, the

distinction between use in public versus private space may not matter– As, for instance, when we talk about “co-

presence”– Or when we regard Internet use

Texting, emailing, web-searching, conducting commercial transactions

I.e. when we emphasize “function”/”use-value”

Digital Devices asDigital Devices as“Difference Markers”“Difference Markers”The cultural role of these digital devices

is not only to adopt a style of lifeIt demarcates one as belonging to a

group:– Any group

Which implies “sociality”Demonstrates “popularity”Refutes anomic-ness

Borrowing from Goffman IBorrowing from Goffman IRemember Erving Goffman? (We ought never

forget him…)When Goffman talked about “tie-signs” he meant

that a gaze could link one passerby with another

Applied to digital phones, we can see them serving as tie-signs of a different sort: – Tying us to unseen others– Implying networks beyond direct social surveillance– Marking us as “belonging elsewhere”

Beyond the current space of observation

Borrowing from Goffman II:Borrowing from Goffman II:Marking DifferenceMarking Difference

“Stigma” is germane, as well.There is an is/not condition of “stigma” associated

with digital use Is: the condition of carrying and using digital

devices in public– Effect: negates stigma

The stigma of being an outsider, a loner, an outcast

Not: the condition of not bearing/using digital devices in public– Effect: activates stigma

The stigma of being unaffiliated, an outsider, uncool

Surveillance and DifferenceSurveillance and DifferenceNumerous authors (e.g. Green 2002; Ling and

Yttri 2002; Skog 2002) have argued that cell phones have altered power geometries– Youth can avoid the surveillance of parents

or others via their new mode of communication

– Certainly in Japan, this is trueAs Ito and Okabe (2003) have arguedMobile phones mean “freedom from”

– in a context where lack of space abounds – and the major sites of daily existence (home,

school, work, urban space) are so heavily monitored

Surveillance and DifferenceSurveillance and DifferenceWhile this may afford a certain privacy, the fact of

surveillance and the presence of the cell phone IN THE FACE OF surveillance is suggestive:– of an open flaunting of privacy– An open presentation of “the intimate self”

As keitai (in particular) is often asserted to be an affective device

It is a representative extension of us– in our capacities of and subjectivity as

being an intimate being

– A declaration of social independence from the collectivity

Surveillance and DifferenceSurveillance and Difference

The existence of social observation and the awareness of observation, suggests that:– digital technologies are wielded precisely to

emphasize “difference”The differentiation of “my private life” from “this

public world”

In a word, because there is surveillance, public digital display happens

Assessing Digital Difference in Assessing Digital Difference in PublicPublic Although insularity from public engagement

may be one assessment of digital use in public . . .

nonetheless, digital engagement in an alternative social (but private) “space”, is:– a social act – committed in a specific, locatable, larger

(common) social space

Intimacy and SurveillanceIntimacy and Surveillance

Absorption or Display?

In Absorption and Theatricality (1980) Michael Fried studied 18th-century French painting’s representation of absorptive states

Media-induced AbsorptionHe emphasized portraits in which the

people depicted ignored the beholder– This is signified as total self-absorption; a

loss of social self-consciousness.

– It is akin to the “interiority” McVeigh theorized exists with cell phone use (2003)

Intimacy and MediaFried also argued,

though, that whenever a consciousness of viewing exists:

absorption is sacrificed

and theatricality results

Surveillance and “Digital Display”As for the social world’s encounter with digital

technology, I would agree with Fried about the theatricality.

But I also think we need to look at his claim about viewing differently.

He argues that when painters obliterated the point of view of the beholder, the 18th century observer:– was “neutralized”– And the viewer found this neutralization “thrilling”

Surveillance and “Digital Display”When it comes to digitality in public, I think that

neutralization and theatricality are wed.The observer, though screened off, is:

– Present, and– Complicit

S/he stands in the outer social world in a position of voyeur of the digital performers, engaged in their public acts of private communication.

Surveillance and “Digital Display”

A state, I admit, I often find myself in . . .As I witness (spy on?) someone locked in on

their digital device in public

Concluding About Public DisplayLeaving me to wonder:

whether there is a communication process going on independent of the communication process involving digital technology

– Beyond the communication between human and machine or human and human through the machine . . .

– Perhaps there is the communication between: human on machine (on the one hand) and the public world (on the other)

Concluding About Public Display: Communicating DifferenceRather than the former (ostensibly) engaged in

“excluding” the latter during the process of their “third party” act of communication

The former plays to the latter:– Signaling it– Engaging it– Speaking to it (about self and place of self in

society)

Communicating difference

Thank You!

Hey Ringo:

Drum Roll, please . . .