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 . . .