Real vs. Virtual Communities and the Internet

I’ll be honest I was having a lot of trouble figuring out what to write about this week. There has been a lot of good discussion surrounding the topics and the readings have been quite relevant to the conversations at hand. However, for some reason I was having difficulty relating it to an example or coming up with my own take on the situation. I feel that the debates surrounding the importance of a “real” vs. “imagined” online community have been going on and will continue for a very long time. This has been something I find myself thinking about as we discuss issues related to community, diaspora and culture in a society that is mediated by the Internet.

I recently participated in an interview for research surrounding the use of Facebook and how it is used, including for how it is used to create community, and build/maintain relationships. This was a very interesting experience as many of the questions forced me to be self-reflexive regarding my use of the online communities of Facebook. It’s something I think we often don’t do. We use these technologies without really thinking about the consequences or how they change our relationships.

There is definitely something to be said for the use of the web in building diasporic communities. We have had many good debates and discussions regarding this topic. I think it is particularly relevant this week in light of our readings by Barney regarding the space and time biases of societies, as well as the mediation of home and homeland argued by Mallapragada. On the one hand, the social networking possibilities of web 2.0 do allow people from around the world to connect with family and friends. Of course there will always be issues with this, including access, ability to use technology, etc. however more and more there is relevance in this global connectability. Not that long ago people who moved away would be completely isolated from their homeland communities. Now (for the most part) there exists an affordable and easy way to communicate with friends and family around the world.

On the other hand, one can argue that these communities are not as “real” or genuine as those fostered in person-to-person interactions. I think this is a difficult argument. While I can understand this from a more local perspective, for example students who all attend the same school only networking and building relationships online, I do not think this argument holds the same for people part of diasporas. Without the use of Internet technology, many people within diasporic groups would be unable to maintain any connection to family and friends in distant locations. Since we no longer live in societies that are strictly rooted in space, social networking has arisen as a good alternative to face-to-face interaction in a globalized world.

The Facebook Dichotomy: Has the Facebook Community Declined Due to Its Commercialization?

Doing research for my MRP has certainly opened my eyes to the way in which Facebook has become a commercial enterprise. Not only are users encouraged to divulge personal information about themselves on their Facebook profiles, but they spend hours of their time uploading photos, posting on their friends walls and using Facebook applications. These actions are the primary source of value for Web 2.0 companies, and Neo Marxist theorists would classify these actions as “free labour.” They would argue that Facebook users are being exploited for the time and energy that goes into producing content, which is then compiled and sold. The articles that have analyzed this aspect of Facebook have been convincing and I often find myself wondering why I have subjected myself to such a thing.

There is no question that Facebook users are becoming increasingly aware of the multiple ways in which Facebook capitalizes on the social interaction of its users. So what exactly keeps us coming back? Although the theorists I have read so far are quite skeptical of Facebook’s tactics, there has not been a theorist yet that denies the gratifying aspect of Facebook. For example, Mark Cote and Jennifer Pybus argue that, “Through the user’s built up network of social relations comes a sense of connectivity and belonging amidst the multiple on-line communities. And it is this sense of connection and participation in something that is larger than one’s self.” Furthermore, Donah Boyd asserts that “Social networking sites enable one to maintain intimate relations among their peers through a shared cultural context that allow youth to solidify their social groups.”

It seems as though these theorists believe that Facebook does have the potential to be a community or at least make people feel as though they are part of one. As argued by Cote and Pybus, social networking sites allow people to feel as though they belong, which is one of the key characteristics of a community.

Barney asserted that “community is impoverished, not necessarily eliminated, by technologically-sponsored worldlessness and that digital media participate in this sponsorship.” While Barney was referring to how digital technologies affect communication and its material setting, I think another factor that could make Facebook an impoverished community is its commercialization. Since many of us know that Facebook has become just another commercial enterprise that surveys what we say and do with the goal of generating revenue, it is no longer just a fun place to hang out and talk to friends. Privacy is compromised on Facebook and I think most people expect a certain level of privacy within their community, where they can share things with one another that they may not want to share with others outside of their community.

There is no denying that Facebook has its perks and remains a powerful force today. However, there are others who believe that the benefits of Facebook do not outweigh the costs. Thus, a growing number of users have decided to flee the site and commit what is now known as “Facebook Suicide” and refuse to never return to what is now the impoverished community known as Facebook.

Let the Table Vanish.. Bring on the Hubs and Nodes!

I’m all for nostalgia. I’m all for the good ol’ days and sitting around the kitchen table on a Sunday night for family dinner and 8 hours worth of dishes afterward. I love when my whole town comes together on Canada Day at Kinsmen Park to celebrate together. I love the feeling of belonging.

With that being said, we are currently situated in the age of Web 2.0, social networking, blogs, wikis, forums, groups and a million other ways to connect. Have a strange obsession? No longer fear being the town outcast or hiding from the neighbours, embrace your obsession with hundreds of others on Facebook! Though Barney makes his standpoint regarding the ability of the Internet’s potential to foster a sense of belonging in a way comparable to a physical space or place. For Barney, society today has lost sight of time-biased media and we are now living in a world of space-bias and intangibility. This tangibility, he argues, is imperative to a real community of belonging as if the table and chairs validate the community as “real” in some way.

I think sitting at a computer desk, with a computer chair, and allowing your relationships to be mediated by a screen seems rather tangible. You cannot physically touch the inside of a computer (the network) but you also cannot touch the inside of the wood in a table. What is the difference?

There IS an opportunity for the Internet to act as a sense of belonging or community. Take, for example, “Sentimental Refugee” which was created by a US immigrant to act as a resource for other immigrants for “connecting, sharing, discussing experiences and getting advice and, whenever possible, help with the life of an immigrant.

The site is not limited to members residing in the US alone, but accepts members from across the globe and its content is driven by readers. In a case like this, that allows marginalized and diasporic groups the ability to feel as if they are a true part of something catering just to them…how can we possibly not see this as a means of community. Where in the tangible world can millions of immigrants share their story and get advice nearly instantaneously? The site also boasts a personals section allowing these people not only the ability to belong to a community, but to foster and share relationships with others within that community. How can we see this type of community does not wholly encompass, create feelings of home, and foster relationships in the same way a community baseball game does?

Online communities bring about collaboration, in some cases love, sharing, communication, knowledge formation and building, a global reach, increased connectivity, support, a different learning experience, flexibility in time engaging with the community and most importantly…knowledge. Why then, should we fear the vanishing table?

Image: http://browse.deviantart.com/digitalart/photomanip/?qh=&section=&q=network#/d37vlle

The sense of belonging differs from person to person in a mediated world

We have very meaningful discussions last week concerning if we can achieve the sense of belonging to a community in a mediated world. From Morley’s and Barney’s articles, we get a sense that the meaning of “home” is not restricted to physical place but can be a “place” where a person is “at ease with the rhetoric of those with whom they share a life”. However, what exactly does “sharing a life” mean? Is the experience of “sharing a life” identical among different persons?

We can say, everyone is the same, or, everyone is different. It depends on what the criterion is and how one perceives sameness and difference. So the feeling of “sharing a life” differs from person to person.

For example, there are people who voluntarily immerse themselves in internet space and enjoy the feeling of sharing life with those belonging to the same imagined communities, due to their high level of participations and their intentions to intermingle the virtual identities with their everyday lives (i.e., they might extend virtual relationship to real life activities). There are people who find watching homeland’s television programs the best way to feel a sense of belonging to their homeland; and find watching host-country’s television programs the best way to experience the real community they are residing in. There are people who feel at home only at physical space with family members. There are people feel isolated even through real interactions in real world.

Should we take into account personal preference in our discussions about the way to acquire a sense of belonging to a community? To say it one step further, should we consider personal difference when studying the issues of globalization, hybridity and flows?

Besides this, I also want to say a few words related to my own experience. I think even within the same community, there are many sub-communities. The feeling of belonging can be very complicated. As a new comer from Mainland China to Canada, when interacting with CBC (Canadian Born Chinese) or those who only speak Cantonese (a widely spoken dialect among Chinese diasporas), I sometimes feel as a minority amongst minority. As is shown in this survey, Cantonese is the main dialect spoken by Chinese community members in Canada. Yes, we all belong to the same cultural background, but do we really belong to the same community? Do I feel at home when talking with them using English because it is the only mutual language we speak?

FIFA World Cup

Community, the definition of the world seems too simple but as I reflect on the presentation on Tuesday I realize that there is a deeper meaning to this word then just the definition. It is not just a group of people living together in a particular area or setting but a community can be a much bigger concept then just being part of a community. For example I am now living in Waterloo-Kitchener which instantly makes me part of the Waterloo-Kitchener community. But just because I am part of the Waterloo-Kitchener community does not necessarily mean I have a sense of belonging or that it is my only community. Sporting events are a great example of establishing community, in the readings by David Morley the hockey rink and baseball field were sporting events that brought together community, physical space and belonging. Although hockey and baseball are great sporting examples I believe the sporting event where I most felt a sense of belonging and community was during the 2010 FIFA world cup in South Africa.

The 2010 FIFA World cup in South Africa was a time in my life where I experienced a sense of greater belonging and community in a sports setting. Everyone from all over the world was representing their host or home land country, cars, houses and windows were all waving flags. Conversations were sparked with strangers who you felt a connection with because you realized that they represented the same country you were, friendships were created both online and at local pubs. Although I met people in different communities for example people from Brampton, Ottawa, Ajax, etc. we still felt connected as a community not just because we were representing Nigerian but also rooting for Africa as a whole, making us part of a greater community. When Ghana was the only African team left in the world cup it carried all of Africa on its back and the support from other African nations was enormous. This sense of community and belonging is seen in K’naan wavin’ flags video (See clip Click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9abNWUM8ZJA ) During the time of the 2010 FIFA world cup all differences were put aside to celebrate something much bigger then what divides us. The FIFA World cup represented community.

Hey, E Readers! Leave Our Books Alone!

Barney’s article “The Vanishing Table, Community in a World that is No World” brought up a number of valid points, though ultimately his argument fell short in one particular spot. Barney seems baffled that we, as citizens of modernity, have little respect for the wonder that is technology. We just can’t appreciate anything because we don’t understand it, and we seem to live in a magical world where technology creates itself and we simply plug in. Barney here is inferring that we need to consider the work involved in creating these technologies – to acknowledge their tangibility, and maybe then we wouldn’t be so whiny, impatient and dismissive (Comedian Louis CK sends a similar message here). And yet, Barney’s argument is based upon the very intangibility of these things – he seems to place technology on this pedestal just as we do.

He does bring up a number of interesting questions, one being “can virtual experiences or technologically mediated experiences be as enriching as “real” ones” ? While in my final paper I plan to argue “yes”, I understand Barney’s point of view when I relate it to my inexplicable hatred for e-readers.

I remember in my third year ethics class that when my professor declared that e-readers would eventually replace all physical books, I simultaneously recoiled in horror and in disbelief. But my professor had claims to back it up: journalism is predominantly online now, with more and more newspapers folding every year; we don’t have books from 500 years ago, so it would be a cinch to move towards the digital books as the ones stacked in libraries remain untouched, and eventually fall apart; people want to exchange and absorb information quickly, e books will be accompanied by a number of applications, such as chapter summaries and author commentary. I still doubted my professor, but with Dr. Herman’s accurate prediction of the Twitter craze I couldn’t take any chances.

At first I couldn’t explain my hatred for e readers. I’ve always had a resistance to new technologies (case in point, my cell phone from 2006), but I felt especially insulted by the ideas of e-readers. Why?

Much like Barney, I must be playing the nostalgia card. In answer to his question “can virtual experiences or technologically mediated experiences be as enriching as “real” ones”, in the case of e-readers I say absolutely not. There’s something about reading that goes beyond just absorbing the text. It’s about feeling the pages, bending the spine, highlighting your favourite parts and lounging wherever you like with your book. It’s about weighing down your backpack, and piling books in your room like trophies of knowledge. People don’t want to charge their books, they don’t want them in file form, they don’t want to look at anymore screens dammit! E-readers, pacha! They’ll never take off. A passing craze, a passing faze, before everyone comes to their senses.

Now, e readers seem to be everywhere, and the popularity of the iPad isn’t helping.

I still don’t think that the e-reader experience is better than or the same as reading a book. My love of reading is closely tied to its physical aspects. If I left the argument here, Barney has won, he has gotten me to agree with his argument about the value of “real” experiences. But the argument does NOT end here. Barney states that technologically mediated experiences will never measure up to real ones, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t one day, or that they don’t already for certain people. Barney grew up in a non-digital age, so his feet stand firmly in the good ol’ days as he remembers them. The same goes for me with books, I grew up with physical books and it is the only way that I understand what it means to read.

E-readers will develop their own appeal, their own ritual aspects which some people will hold near and dear. They will be very “real” experiences for a lot of people. Take writing as an example, ancient authors would argue that writing must be done with a quill and with ink, and for them writing can’t happen any other way. But does this view devalue the writing process when it is done with a pen, a pencil or a keyboard?

Children of the future may be saying “there’s something about downloading a book, about clicking to the next page, about the glare of the screen that just makes the reading experience.” Barney is letting nostalgia lead his argument about communities. Just because the way we experience a community is changing doesn’t mean that they way we experience it is less valid. Does the medium always matter?

What do you think, is nostaligia holding us back from accepting new ways of experiencing?

To be or not to be a community...

Community.

What is it and how can we obtain it?

These questions stayed with me after class this week because many of us were probably speaking from our own view of what community means. I therefore decided to do a bit of research on the term community and found an interesting mix of ideas.

The American Heritage Dictionary online defines community as:
1. A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.
2. A group of people having common interests

The encyclopedia of informal education had a lot more to say on the topic of community, exploring it in three different ways: place, interests and communion. The site is well developed with both historical accounts and theoretical support on what community means to our world. An excerpt I found to be interesting follows:

“The fact that people live close to one another does not necessarily mean that they have much to do with each other. There may be little interaction between neighbours. It is the nature of the relationships between people and the social networks of which they are a part that is often seen as one of the more significant aspects of ‘community.”

David Morley’s discussion of residential segregation, boundaries and mobility draws on this quote and deals with the misconception of community as indicative of space and time. The same argument goes for online communities. Although on Facebook we have a sense of community, even within this, there may be a lack of place, interest and communion. Additionally, I think we can all agree that about half of the people listed as our “friends” are really not a part of our day-to-day community. Just like many of the people who live beside us are people we only know by name so too are the faces we see on Facebook each day.

To better situate my ideas I want to turn to Darin Barney’s article, “The Vanishing Table, or Community in a World that is No World”. In his argument concerning the relationship of community, commodities and digital media Barney states that ”community is impoverished, not necessarily eliminated, by technologically-sponsored wordlessness and that digital media participates in this sponsorship” (63). The word impoverished I find quite fitting. I think we need to ask ourselves: Are the communities, the spaces of belonging, which we create a part of the destruction of life and society that we see around us? I can see that within online social networks such as Facebook, community is possible. Although it seems as if our definition of community is simply a definition of numbers and face time on an online forum. As critical as these statements may sound, I think they are important for us to think about. I want to believe that technology can create a community that rests on pillars of place, interests and communion. However I feel that we often misuse these forums for other purposes such as popularity contests and surveillance, both of which lead to an impoverishment of community.

The Sporting Community

The idea of community and belonging has always seemed like a straight cut notion to me; however, I have never questioned or thought critically about my community or even examined the different types of communities to which I belong. When I used to think of "community", I immediately thought of the town (place) where I resided all of my life. There is the community town hall, the community centre (which houses a variety of activities), community parks, community churches and community sports fields. I think of these spaces as very geographical and as places where anyone in the community can go to participate; however, now that I really think about these spaces, there are issues of "belonging" surrounding each of them. For example, although churches promote welcoming new members, one needs to identify with the institutional practices/beliefs in order to belong. For the sports fields, one must be able to play sports (i.e. talent-based, financially-able etc.) in order to participate in these communities. Therefore, there seem to be a lot of sub-communities within what I thought was the overarching community - but now I know I should be rethinking my unexamined notion of "community" and explore the different ways in which some community members may be excluded from these sub-communities.

Going further with the sports example, I think the realm of sports is one of the most poignant ways of creating, and making visible the values of community and belonging. In his article on belonging, author David Morley speaks about three spaces: physical space, spaces of belonging and communities. I think the subject of sports can work in all three spaces. As Darin Barney briefly noted in his article, the hockey rink can be a physical space where people come together to create a place of belonging. Together, these spaces can house the hockey community, which can include players, coaches, family and other members of the community who watch/help out with gameplay. I played baseball for 8 years and although it was not my favourite pastime, I enjoyed playing on a team with other girls my age and feeling like I belonged somewhere/to something. For example, if we won a game, we all shared the pride; if we lost a game, we all bore the sadness together. We learned to work together because baseball is a game that cannot be played individually; consequently, learning to work together helped us foster a camaraderie, which flowed into other communities (i.e. high school). All in all, I think sports is a great way to draw a variety of people together and experience a sense of pride and belonging to make visible the characteristics of community.

New World or No World?

When we consider the arguments of Barney’s “The Vanishing Table, or Community in a World that is No World” and Malapragada’s “Home, homeland, homepage: belonging and the Indian-American web” we can see the complicated nature of digital communities. For one, Barny compares the artificial turf dome to the neighbourhood baseball field, in order to articulate the artificiality of digital communities as oppose to real communities. Barny knows that digital technologies threaten community relationships, yet in Malapragada’s work he believes that the web transforms the hegemonic identities of NRI and PIOs by articulating diverse imagination of homelands but its overlapping contemporary social life and its socio-historical identities.

It appears that Barney and Malapragada contradict themselves, perhaps it is true that the web disrupts community and essentially alienates people. But for a community that would have no relation to their home, without the web or technology it still informs them of their past while allowing them to negotiate their identity within the western world or technology itself. Malapragada articulates that “World Wide Web is transgressing ‘real’ and symbolic borders around the ‘private’ household and the ‘public’ homeland” (207).

As we’ve seen in Kraidy, hybridity is a part of modernity and cultural evolution. There is no culture or ethnicity that has not borrowed from another culture. So the NRI and PIOs on the net within their own community are becoming a successful hybrid by forming a community with their culture as well as negotiate themselves within western ideals. An example of an Indian homepage is Beigeworld.com- the discouses of this page emphasize the contemporary issues of the Indian American community. This webpage or homepage, give diasporas a place to speak and form a community that has no Borders.

Beige is the new green

When examining complex topics, such as those of diaspora and immigration, sometimes I think it is important to take a comedic look at the issues. Media that satire serious issues sometimes make it easier to critically examine the true motivations of these satires. In class this week we discussed the pseudo-academic “beige theory” which assumes that in the future all people will be one colour, beige. There are many problems associated with this idea, such as the notion that race is a tangible ‘thing’ that can be destroyed. It fails to acknowledge the social, historical and cultural constructions of race. During our conversation I could not help but think of the South Park episode entitled “Goobacks” (2004) (season 8, episode 6), in which people from the future travel back in time (to our present), looking for jobs. The people who arrive in South Park are all beige, as are all the people in the future. They speak a language that is a combination of all the old earth languages. They maintain their future culture, which is a mix of all the old cultures. They even establish neighbourhoods such as “little future”, which resembles neighbourhoods such as “little Italy”. In Kraidy’s (2005) article the notion that hybridity is universal and culturally specific demonstrates the fact that all cultures draw on each other and have similar elements but the elements each culture expropriates and uses within their own cultural hybrid is specific. The future people of South Park demonstrate this idea; they are a hybrid of all of Earth’s old cultures, but this is culturally specific to their group.

I think this is an interesting commentary about current aspects of global cultural hybridity and immigration and diaspora in general. Once they come to the present, they cannot travel back to the future, but the money they make will go to help support their families. However, so many people from the future come to the present that the people in South Park start to complain about loosing their jobs to this cheaper labour source. Near the end of the episode, the town realizes that making the world a better place in the present will make the future a better place for everyone. Of course, being the town of South Park, no one really learns anything from the experience, which again is an interesting commentary on North American society, but that is another topic. Clearly this is a comment about contemporary concerns surrounding immigration and diaspora, where people from around the globe travel/migrate according to where they can gain employment. What is also interesting is the way people try to cling to the (now) imaginary boarders between the present and future. This episode clearly follows a “new world boarder” with a transnational, hybrid culture.

While we may not all be beige in some distant future, this episode of South Park is an interesting analogy to look at the global hybridity of language and culture. In a world that is every more diverse, as boarder disappear (but remain every protected), and where the transnational flow of people is an excepted norm, it will be interesting to see how the future global society will appear.

Hip Hop is Dead: Authenticity and the Aesthetics of Hip Hop Music

Paul Gilroy put a lot of emphasis on the power and aesthetics of hip hop music and argued that hip hop allowed the terrors of slavery to be kept alive and cultivated in social forms. A musical genre that belonged to a very particular subculture in a particular geographic location has expanded globally. This expansion partly relied on white consumer culture and thus hip hop has been appropriated in order to appeal to suburban youth.

Hip hop artists have reacted to the assimilation into the mainstream and many believe that there are contradictions that lie in the commercialization of hip hop; Hip hop emerged as a form of protest against the mainstream and now it is a part of it. The appropriation and commercialization of hip hop is often seen as posing a threat to its authenticity. Anytime I hear about the debate of authenticity in hip hop I always think of Nas’ controversial album, “Hip hop is dead.” In an MTV interview, Nas said:

“When I say 'hip-hop is dead', basically America is dead. There is no political voice. Music is dead ... Our way of thinking is dead, our commerce is dead. Everything in this society has been done... What I mean by 'hip-hop is dead' is we're at a vulnerable state. If we don't change, we gonna disappear like Rome. I think hip-hop could help rebuild America, once hip-hoppers own hip-hop ... We are our own politicians, our own government, we have something to say”

Hip hop is a culture and thus it is always in flux and subject to change. Since the 1970’s hip hop has indeed evolved and new digital technologies have been integral to the aesthetic changes within hip hop music as the beats we hear now are often just simulated. I think hip hop has become standardized as songs are starting to sound more alike and the lyrics of most of the songs we hear on the radio seem to be saying the exact same thing such as, “I’m @#%&# Rich” or “I saw this fine girl at the club.” Considering the conditions in which hip hop emerged as a genre, it makes me wonder: What happened to hip hop? Hip hop is no longer educating and informing people. Instead, it seems as though hip hop artists have one goal in mind which is to create one hit song that will increase album sales. When I think of modernity I think of progression. In the case of hip hop, it is ironic that the progression in digital technologies has ultimately led to the regression of hip hop music. Artists such as Nas would argue that hip hop should go back to the past when beats were made with instruments and turn tables; where hip hop artists were not only interested in making money and pleasing music executives but were more interested in creating music and using it as an outlet to express their feelings regarding the political and social circumstances in which they lived.

Any Hybridity Displays as Cocktail?

Kraidy (2005) depicted the manifold hybridities in diverse historical, cultural and social backgrounds. After reading his article, I was wondering a question: is it possible that under certain circumstances, different cultures co-exist but are stratified into different layers like a cocktail?

I know it is impossible when we think about hybridity in biological sense. How can a black dad and a white mom give birth to a baby who is literally half white and half black? The only outcome of race mixture is fusion, totally fusion in terms of the color of the baby, as well as the cultural identity.

But the hybridity we are talking about is not restricted to biological miscegenation. The notion of hybridity is rhetorically used to indicate the mixture of cultures in an era of globalization. However, is it possible that the mixture of cultures doesn’t function in the same way as the fusion of different race, but distribute in different layers separately?

For example, “the Singaporeans learnt their English, but in no deep sense learnt English habits of thought or culture; even the most casual visitor will discern a lack of ‘inwardness’ with the language. What did transpire, however, was an estrangement from Chinese culture. […] While English was conducive to purposes of business and technology, Chinese was the transmitter of ‘traditional values’, ‘Asian values’, obedience, thrift, diligence, self-discipline, respect for family, and so on.”(Lynn Pan, Sons of the Yellow Emperor: A History of the Chinese Diaspora (1990)) In other words, Singaporeans learn English to estrange from China and use Chinese to maintain virtuous Asian traditions.

It is true that language is indispensible from culture. However, is it possible that people use different language to stratify different dimensions of culture? Based on my own experience, I think it is hard but possible. Although I am getting more and more proficient in English in studying and at work, I still regard Chinese words as a tool to express my inner most values and feelings. Many Canadian Chinese still value humbleness and close family ties while eating hamburgers and speaking English everyday. However, I admit the fact that the second generation will behave in more westernized way.

To investigate this question one step further, is it possible to produce a society that would be modern and traditional at the same time? Is modernization without westernization possible?

Is Authenticity Possible?

It is fitting that our discussions have settled around diasporas and hybridity as February is celebrated as Black History Month in North America. That being said I am often embarrassed by my lack of understanding of what Black History Month is all about. As a Canadian, I should know more about what this month signifies and more so the part both my country and heritage have played in the lives of this social group. In researching about Black Canadians I came across quite a few startling facts. For one, although slavery was abolished in 1834, segregation in schools was not formerly ended until the 1950’s. Also it was not until 1993 that the first female black woman was elected to parliament. I have realized over the years just how much the role of race plays in popular culture.

As I read Gilroy’s chapter, “Jewels Brought from Bondage”: Black Music and the Politics of Authenticity”, I realize that growing up I was surrounded by much more Black popular music, television shows and films than I am today. As a young girl I was surrounded by popular Black family sit-coms such as Family Matters, The Cosby Show and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. I find that in recent years there has been a move away from all black or all white television shows and move toward a more multi or inter-raced representation. However, I find most prime time to be dominated by white personalities, with the exception of a minority cast of one or two Hispanic, Black or Asian characters. Are these characters enough to act as a full representation of these diasporic groups? Is the setting and storyline true representation of what these groups experience in America? Does placing a few racial characters on a popular soap opera or sit-com simulate an idealistic message of hybridity and equality across America?

I would say yes.

I know that there are accurate and authentic representations of these marginalized groups, but they are most often segregated to their own television stations, not picked up by basic cable. Even films have been segregated between popular and foreign, oftentimes played in very different venues. If you want to watch more authentic films or television shows, you need to be active in your search. American popular media has done a great job of segregating and specializing in promoting messages of hybridity as a good thing and an even better job of ensuring that true representations and struggles remain outside popular reach.

Additionally, I want to propose that a hybrid trend has emerged within the music industry, seen with the Black Eyed Peas and the duet collaborations of Jay-Z and Linkin Park. These multi-raced music collaborations posit an interesting topic for hybridity and popular culture. Similar to our discussion in class of K-OS, it seems to be the new trend in popular music to have more than one identity, to be associated with some sort of diaspora and to borrow from each in the creation of art.

You Suck Hybridity! The Anti-Hybridity Backlash

There is a short section in the Kraidy reading (p. 65-67) which I found to be really interesting, and that is the idea of anti-hybridity. Haters of hybridity critique the term, calling it neo-colonial, useless, and “academic nonsense, at worst as a pernicious affirmation of hegemonic power” (66). Believers in anti-hybridity state that all cultures are and always have been hybrid. Pure cultures are a myth, and therefore hybridity as a concept is meaningless. Anti-hybriditers also attack the fluidity of the term, stating “when a concept means so many different things to so many different people in so many different fields and so many different contexts, it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever” (66). The hybridity bullying doesn’t stop there – it’s also accused of being a term used to by émigré intellectuals who just love fancy theorizing (who doesn’t?!).

I have to say, the hybridity haters do bring up a number of interesting points. To a certain extent, the concept of hybridity needs to be roughed up a little, primarily to test its strength of character and to determine whether or not it firmly has its feet on the ground. Hybridity as a concept needs to be unpacked, and its links to hegemony, fancy theorizing and the Western world need to be explored more in depth.

However, I disagree with certain aspects of anti-hybridity. The claim that “when a concept means so many different things to so many different people in so many different fields and so many different contexts, it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever” is far too dismissive. The sheer pervasiveness of the term AND its variety of different meanings deem it all the more worthy of study. Based on this short reading, it is apparent that anti-hybriditers also fail to consider the history of culture. While cultures may in fact have never been “pure”, as they suggest, in many circles cultures are absolutely believed to have been pure. As we know, ideologies and beliefs have material consequences that cannot be ignored with respect to this study of history. Furthermore, the very word “hybridity” and “multiculturalism” further enforce the idea of once existing pure cultures.

While the anti-hybridity side does a good job of attacking the concept of hybridity, like all bullies it needs to take a good hard look in the mirror and reassess its arguments. But hybridity, you’re not as innocent as you look either, so watch your back.

Not everything that glitters is gold

Hip-hop culture was once seen as an expressive tool used as an advocate for marginalized groups in the inner city slums and ghettos. The hip-hop culture represented stories of change, hope and artistic freedom, which was also seen as a therapeutic way of dealing with less than fortunate circumstances. Although hip-hop culture started off as a means of social comfort for those living in the inner city, the focus of hip-hop culture has now shifted into a mainstream commercialized industry, projecting an unattainable materialistic lifestyle to inner city youth. From reflective writing concerning social, political and personal issues to historical research, songs were used to provide historical meaning and social comfort. Hip hop music has many sub-genres, for example gangster/hardcore rap, conscious hip hop and Christian hip hop. In today’s mainstream culture, hip hop culture is seen commodified industry that sells the image of a glorified criminal, materialistic, misogynistic and fictional subculture. The once praised hip hop culture that was seen as a vivid illustration of black-lived experience and its linkage to Black political power and its ability to motivate and speak the truth to the inner city youth, is now a seen as a commercialized commodity of the mainstream media.
American hip hop culture in today’s mainstream society is praised for its materialistic lavish lifestyle. Television programming channels such as MTV and Black Entertainment Television (BET) are known for their glorification of the hip hop culture world. BET is a hip-hop broadcasting channel that showcases the lives of those who are part of the hip hop culture. The life of hip hop culture is not only portrayed through music but as well through the high society life and high end social gatherings that involve big names in both the hip hop culture as well as the athletic society.
The exploitation of the commercialization of conventional hip-hop plays into many stereotypes of race, gender and class. Hip-hop cultures willingness to become absent to its self by permitting a fictional character to stand in for it by allowing the commercial industry to define how it’s seen and hip-hop culture accepting this representation. Hip-hop culture has allowed the mass media to redefine what it is and what and who it stands for.

Blast from the past

Last week’s presentation by Amanda was very intriguing but what I found most interesting was the question: do you believe that third world countries and other non western countries want to be modern like the western world? Although Amanda and I briefly discussed this, I wanted to use this opportunity to properly state and hopefully clarify what I was trying to convey.
The dictionary definition of modernity is relating to recent development of advance style, technique or technology. For example modern art, technology or medicine. Latours defines modernity as being grounded in the past, yet also being accelerated in present time.
The dictionary definition of modernity is where my confusion occurred with the term “modernity”. I believe that some third world or non western countries do have some modern technology and are advance in some areas, maybe not as advanced as the Western world but they definitely have some. To say that non western countries want to be as modern as the western world is definitely an overstatement looking from a western perspective. I believe that there is a give and take aspect these non western world countries can take from the western world what they need to help enhance their country, but at the same time not lose the essence, cultural values and traditions of their country. In the western world, a lot of times when we advance ourselves we also lose ourselves. For example I believe that social networking has grown into a new popular culture that has erased some of the old culture. Although I understand the importance and advantages of social networking sites I believe it is becoming problematic here in the Western world more than any other place. Living in the Western world I can see how we can look at other non Western countries and ask “why wouldn’t they want to be as modernized as us?”, but at the same time I feel as though we lose some of our culture and I don’t think this is something that other non western world countries want.
Latours definition of modernity in a nutshell is something that I don’t believe that non western world countries are aspiring to achieve but something that is already happening. They are holding on to their traditions while advancing themselves in different aspects without losing their cultural values, heritage and traditions.

Where Does Hybridity Fit Within the Dichotomy of Race?

After viewing Kait's presentation, I decided to completely change my original blog post - even though I find the notion of race always seems to be a tricky/touchy subject. Personally, I feel awkward writing about my opinions on race because I know I am a privileged Caucasian; however, I think this is the first step to forming and voicing my thoughts, and hopefully receiving some feedback. My interest sparked after reading the online blog post about removing the "race" category from the American census. Immediately after reading this, voices went off in my head saying, "that's not possible" and "that will never happen"; however, the more I think about this idea, the more I believe it could be possible - or at least it's not impossible.

Call me naive, but I thought race was not simply a purely socially constructed concept; I honestly thought one's race was directly linked to one's biology. Obviously hybrid/mixed races come about as a result of two parents' different genes, but I had no idea that one's race cannot be seen/determined biologically. From this new information, I do wonder why the "race" category is on the census. If the government is interested in the immigration patterns or the different multicultural (socially constructed) identities with which some citizens identify, then why not rephrase the question as such? There seems to be an unrealistic obsession with dichotomy among, well, almost everything in our world. Following gender with opposite poles of female and male, race also focuses on simply being black or white. Why? Maybe 100 years ago it seemed like a relevant question because of the colonial focus on differentiation, but now, as globalization seems to strive toward democracy and equality, these original dichotomies need to be abandoned.

I think it is important to remember and respect individuals’ cultures, but I do think the next fifty years are going to bring about a whirlwind of needed change in terms of globalization and hybridity. I feel like so much has changed in the last hundred years in terms of equality and equity across a milieu of cultural issues; however, we are in desperate need to update our terminology to reflect these changes.

Leave, Stay, Return: Where do I belong?

With all the discussion of multiculturalism and the effects of hybrid cultures this week I want to discuss an interview on The Daily Show last week. The interview was with journalist Anand Giridharadas who wrote a book titled India Calling. Giridharadas’ parents immigrated to the United States where he was born and grew up. The interview is interesting (in my opinion) for two reasons. First, he focuses on the dilemmas of coming to terms with a cultural heritage. Giridharadas talks about his experience of moving back to India at 21 and about the process of coming to terms with his cultural identity. Second he shares stories about being in India and the people he interviewed. While I have not read the book I think one of the stories discussed in the interview is particularly interesting when considering notions of diasporas and global cultures. Giridharadas talks about a man he met in India, who decided to stay in India instead of leaving to pursue the “American Dream” in the United States. He worked hard, with motivations of the American Dream (hard work, perseverance, etc.), but did so in India. He wanted to stay where he had opportunity and was still big by the standards of the town he was in: he didn’t want to get lost in America. This is what I found particularly interesting. We don’t step back and consider how it feels to be one person lost within the brackets of a multicultural society. Indeed many of us cannot know what this feels like, as our families have lived here for a long time or we have come from similar (European) cultural backgrounds. I think this speaks to aspects of cultural identity and diaspora that we have been talking about, particularly this week. There is always the threat of losing one’s cultural identity. As Sinclair and Cunningham state, culture must be maintained, actively practiced, it is not simply inherent. While I am not part of a diaspora, I think it can be easy to forget or not think about how difficult maintaining cultural identity can be. We don’t consider how people can become lost within their host country, whether their significance as an individual or their cultural identity. I wonder if the example mentioned by Giridharadas will be repeated in the future or are being repeated. Will people look to aspects of their own country for opportunities? Or is this a rare case restricted to the unique economic conditions of India?

Omm nommm nommm: How to Traverse and Consume 8 Cultures in Three Minutes.

For breakfast, I had good ol’ American eggs and bacon. For lunch, I had “Opa!” and a delicious Greek Salad. For Dinner, I had Manchu Wok (2 Item special...what a deal!).

If we are to take the phrase “you are what you eat” with great weight... I may have a serious identity crisis on my hands. Consuming American, Greek, and Chinese in a day is certainly a more literal way of “eating the other” however my interest lies not with bellhooks, but with cultural identity and the mass consumption of culture through looking at the food court of a shopping mall. To consider an extremely local example, the Conestoga Mall food court options are: A&W, Ah-So Sushi (Japanese), Bourbon St. Grill (Cajun), Cultures, Feta & Olives (Greek), KFC/Taco Bell (Mexican), Manchu Wok (Chinese), New York Fries, Spring Rolls (Pan-Asian), Subway, Tandori (Indian), Tim Hortons (Canadian!), and Villa Madina (Mediterranean).

Is the food court a way to maintain culture? To actively practice it when you’re hungry from fighting off a few hours worth of aggressive sale seekers?

Certainly these sites would not be able to operate without the business of patrons frequenting the food court. But considering the 2006 census data of the cultural make-up of Waterloo (82.3% White, 5.3 % Chinese, 4.6% South Asian, 1.2% Black, 1.0% Southeast Asian, 0.9% Hispanics, 3.5% Other) it seems unlikely that these locales were created with the intent of feeding the marginalized groups to whom each fast-food counter speaks to. So who consumes the other? Why it was originally created?

Appardurai conceives the concept of the “Imagined World” as a place where the area between real and fictional become skewed, so the further away we are...the more we imagine. Can the food court be conceived as an Imagined world of ethnic cuisine rooted in culture but Westernized because of the distance? It may be simple to look at the food court as a product of the recent trend of consuming more culturally diverse products. It does appear that we crave difference (literally and figuratively speaking) but consider briefly the origin on Manchu Wok, a Chinese food court option. Interestingly enough, the owners of the chain were immigrants from Hong Kong who opened their business in 1980 after coming to Canada. Could it not be argued that as they began their journey in their host nation a desire for the taste of homeland emerged? As time progressed, the cuisine became more American-Chinese, serving chicken wings and BBQ pork as options and boasting a “Fast and Fresh Chinese Cuisine.” In the past 30 years then, the original definition of true, authentic cuisine the creators may have envisioned is now slightly altered, serving more Americanized options and adopting the Westernized worldview of speed, hurriedness, and efficiency over more Eastern ideals

Manchu Wok is not an isolated case. “Panda Express” was opened in California by Ming Tsai Cherng, an Immigrant from China, “Sbarro” by Gennero and Carmela Sbarro, immigrants from Naples, and in 1963 Jimmy “The Greek” Antonopoulo immigrated from Naflio. Could it be, then, that these are all “imagined worlds” knowing the aforementioned? Did these immigrants turned entrepreneurs blur the line of fiction in order to create their own imagined world or did they simply become accustomed to the ideals and values of America and use them to profit their business? If the many sites of ethnic dining at the mall began with the dreams and recipes of talented immigrants...how did they become so Americanized?

Diasporas and Twister – “The game that ties you up in knots!”

As the discussion of hybridity and the negotiation between identities and cultures continued in class this week, I could not help but think of the game Twister. In this game people’s bodies are crisscrossed over various locations, intertwined with the other players of the game. Similarly, within the multicultural landscape of Canada, diasporas straddle various locations, shifting from one to the next, never quite forming a solid identity. Just when you think you may have a direction laid out, another move shifts everyone into another location, causing a domino effect of cultural dissolution and assimilation. A player wins the game once everyone else has fallen and they are left standing in some crazy, awkward position. Oftentimes it seems we can have that same perception of diaspora groups and multiculturalism. The culture seen as the most hybrid is the one which can adopt the most diversity while still standing firm in the origins and traditions of their homeland.

Arjun Appadurai’s explanation of ethnoscapes and mediascapes further explores this notion of diaspora and hybridity. Appardurai works through the concept of the ‘imagine world’ whereby “the lines between the ‘realistic’ and the fictional landscape…are blurred, so that the further away these audiences are from the direct experience of metropolitan life, the more likely they are to construct ‘imagined worlds’” (299). As such, the developing world, through the media, is able to create an image of the developed world – a modernized world. However, a question I was thinking of in class is, how much of an ‘imagined world’ do we create of developing nations? It is fair to say that just as media shapes the worldview on Western culture, so too does it shape the narrative of the developing world. Unless we have visited these nations and got a direct eye witness to the standard of living, we would not have an accurate narrative of their life. Diasporas living within Canada, through alternative media outlets, can help correct our cultural blindness. We often frame what nations are experiencing within our Western perspective, not realizing that this perspective is heavily loaded with our privileged views on democracy and freedom.

Sinclair and Cunningham’s description of hybridity draws attention to the struggle and “knots” formed between host and home nation. While traveling I am sure all of us have in some way experienced the feeling of alienation, but it is hard for myself to imagine this experience as a permanent one. I remember my travels in Spanish speaking communities and the uncertainty and feeling of not belonging I felt. As I logged onto the Internet in the city café, I found myself feeling at ease with the ability to communicate with my family, in my mother tongue, over email. The technoscapes of our culture may create unrealistic narratives of the world, but they also help form new people’s groups. Within these groups, identity flows, transcending time and space and above all provides for opportunities of political and social change.

Is Canada Multicultural? Stepping outside of the definition

In class, an interesting discussion sparked about whether or not Canada is multicultural. At the beginning of her presentation, Amanda defined multiculturalism as follows (well, this is what I have in my notes, I apologize if it’s incorrect): Multiculturalism –An individual’s “culture” must be maintained, it is not inherent but must be actively practiced; multiculturalism is not a project of the nation state.

In the end, it seemed that the general consensus was that multiculturalism itself did not exist or could not exist.

I found this discussion to be really interesting, and again the rationale for Canada’s non-multiculturalism partly rested on the capitalization of difference. As discussed, the food court is not a true example of multiculturalism because each restaurant is at once being exploited based on its difference/exotic appeal, but is also watered down in order to meet Western standards.

True enough, but our discussion left me wondering just how much of our debate was dictated by a single word, a single definition, that of course of multiculturalism. Author Janet Wolff revealed how the words we use shape communication and our understanding of history. In the language of modernity, words themselves are powerful, but often very restrictive.

Of course, if we stick to the definitions of multiculturalism, maybe Canada isn’t multicultural at all, but this problem lies more so with the choice of words than with Canada’s failed efforts. By sticking to the definition of multiculturalism, we are asking that an ideal of multiculturalism be met, and just as with definitions of democracy, freedom and the public sphere, these ideals are impossible to meet.

But this doesn’t mean that we should dismiss Canada as non-multicultural, instead I would call for a redefinition of the term. Or better yet, we need to stop being so loyal to definitions and start looking outside the pages of the dictionary.

Is Canada multicultural? I know that Toronto is. Simply riding the streetcar across the city, you will encounter a number of different areas and subsequently different cultures. The streetcar is often filled with different accents and languages. Toronto has a number of different cultural events, such as Caribana and Taste of the Danforth. While the argument may again return to “capitalizing/exploiting difference”, perhaps for now this is one of the main ways to show appreciation for another culture. And maybe, what multiculturalism means, is that another culture is able to really celebrate and brand their culture without judgment. Where’s the harm in that?

Imagined Communities 2.0: Diasporas and the use of Social Media

Diaspora describes the dispersal of people from their land of origin to other countries. What is distinct about diaspora is that they maintain a link to their homeland and stay connected to those who have moved to other countries. In the globalized world, social media has allowed diaspora to cross borders and maintain a connection to their homeland. Social Media is instrumental to diaporas as it allows them to cross geographical and political boundaries in order to transmit and sustain their traditions. Diasporas who interact through social media are able to participate in an imagined community as a strategy to maintain “long-distance nationalism.” Social Media exemplifies the way in which communication technologies have been utilized by people to form social relationships but also to maintain those that already exist.

Anderson characterized national cultures as “imagined communities” as being “bonded discursively by a sense of deep, horizontal belonging to an imagined common origin and a mythical past, the imagi(nations) of deterritorialized people, even when scattered through different lands, may be marked correspondingly by “absentee patriotism and long-distance nationalism” (Sinclair, 19). The Article, “Imagined, Online communities,” does a great job explaining why and how social media can be theorized as an imagined community. He explains that while members within an online community may have never met, there still exists a sense of solidarity among them.

Appadurai noted that with “‘print capitalism’ a new power was unleashed in the world, the power of mass literacy and its attendant large-scale production of projects of ethnic affinity that were remarkably free of the need for face-to-face communication...” (Appadurai, 2). Print media was a new way of disseminating information that “made it possible for people to think about themselves and relate to other in new ways.” Social networking sites such as facebook and twitter have had similar effects as they have created new opportunities for diaspora to stay connected and share information, keeping them updated on the events taking place in their homeland. It is interested how powerful these online communities have become. Social networks such as Facebook and twitter exemplify globalization from below as they have allowed people to go against those who may have particular interests. For example, in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, journalists were reporting stories that were inconsistent with the stories produced by citizens using social media. In this case, social media allowed people to inform each other and do their own reporting on the events in Haiti.

The Agency of the Grassroots: Egyptian Diaspora Empowered by Social Media

Many influential scholars are very pessimistic about the agency of the deployment of media by grassroots. Appadurai (1990), innovatively identifying five disjunct dimensions of “scapes” in global cultural economy, asserted that mediascapes are only tools of nationstates to pacify separatists or potential ideas of difference.

"National and international mediascapes are exploited by nationstates to pacify separatists or even the potential fissiparousness of all ideas of difference…exercising taxonomic control over difference, by creating various kinds of international spectacle to domesticate difference, and by seducing small groups with the fantasy of self-display on some sort of global or cosmopolitan stage."

While Cinclair & Cunningham (2000) explored how diasporas make use of communication media, they only exemplified how diasporas redefine the cultural identities in hybrid terms, the transcendence of the dichotomy of home and host via television.

But where is the agency of the grassroots in political movements? With the development of media technology and the wide spread of social networking media in recent years, do we have enough reason to reconstruct the role of media in the political movements? The Egyptian revolution facilitated by Egyptian diaspora using social media tools (Blogs, Facebook, Twitter) lends some supports to this inquiry.

Social media has played a remarkable role not only in how Egyptians used it to organize the anti-government protests, but in how the Egyptian diasporas have witnessed, relayed information and influenced the world order. Although mainstream media are belittling the power of social media by claiming that the access to internet has been blocked, uses in Egypt can always find ways to bypass Twitter and Facebook blocks through mobile and third-party apps, proxy sites, software, VPN…On the other hand, the Internet block raised no less anxiety of the Egyptian Diasporas than people in homeland. They use telephone to get information from protests and spread them out through social media (@Jan25voices). They are important nexus linking the local and the global. Serving for this desperate demand, Google, Twitter and SayNow engineers released "Speak to Tweet" for Egyptians, a service that turns voice messages into tweets with the #Egypt tag attached. Egyptians could use their landlines to call one of three international numbers and leave messages.

Many many Egyptian Americans utilize this information to criticize what the Western media is getting wrong. It is very important to shape the narrative and get it to stick, especially in situations of crisis because history is always written by the victors and the powers. For example, a New York-based Egyptian blogger interviewed by CNN and appealed to the media to change the words “revolt” and “uprising” and “revolution” and not “chaoes” and “unrest”. Then, CNN changed its on-screen headlines from “CHAOS IN EGYPT” to “UPRISING IN EGYPT”.

Organized via Facebook, many Egyptian diasporas marched and protested in Los Angeles, San Franciso, Washington, New York and in cities around the world, demanding that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak relinquish power. Pressures from the mediascape and ethnoscape forced Washington to make a subtle, but incontrovertible shifting of the U.S. position. They declined to articulate explicit support for Mubarak. Ironically, the power of empire can be "positive" and "desirable" in some sense.

That said, it is still very interesting to explore the motivation of the active deployments of social media of the Egyptian diasporas. I think we can address these or related issues from other angles in the coming weeks (e.g., Hybridity, Community…).