Fan-Fiction: The Modern Day Diary Entry

Fan-fiction has proven to be more than just a fad or niche pastime for a small group of people. At its core, fan-fiction is fiction written by in the fictional universe or including the same characters of that of a certain media that they are a fan of (ie. television show, novel). Often times these stories fill in backstory for different characters or explore new themes and ideas that the media did not cover (recontextualization, refocalization, etc.) . Perhaps more interesting is the more controversial “slash-fiction”, in which sexual relationships and impulses are explored between characters of fictional texts that did not occur in the original version. An example is the below image of two male Star-Trek characters, an imagined concept created by a fan for fictional purposes:

On the surface, fan-fiction does not seem particularly interesting. So young people are writing cheesy backstories for sci-fi characters, who cares? Well, I think in a sense writing fan-fiction works as a modern day diary entry, where young, confused and impressionable teenagers and young adults alike can express their bottled up feelings about sexuality, race and gender equality and relations, politics, and other larger cultural ideas. The fan-fiction writers imagine themselves in the scenarios they write about, but instead of “personalization” where they literally write themselves into the stories, they express emotions and ideas through characters who they feel comfortable and identify with. It is in this way that it works as a sort of diary entry because although the fiction is often posted into public forums, it is anonymous as they hide behind the identities of the characters they write about. On top of this, readers of the fan-fiction are able to better understand their own sexuality and other feelings through these so called “diary-entries” of  others. Take for example the girl in this Vice article who talks about how reading and creating fan-fiction worked as the sexual education she wasn’t getting from her family and friends:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/fan-fiction-is-the-sexual-education-i-gave-myself 

This example demonstrates how the diaries not only work as diary entries for the people who write them, but also for the people who read them, who may then be inspired to write their own material or have conversations and dialogue about things they may before would have been to reserved about. Which leads me to what I’d like to talk about next in terms of how fan-fiction writing transcends its surface purpose, which is its ability to bring people together. 

Subcultures are nothing new, and have existed as an alternative to mainstream culture for some time now. From the 1960s hippies in San Francisco to the mods and the rockers in 1970s London, subcultures have been well known and present historically. What is more of a recent phenomenon however is online "fandom" subcultures. Participants of these online subcultures practice similar traits to those who are part of traditional subcultures such as secret languages, distinct style, or inside jokes, but do so online. The members of these online subcultures cherish the source material that they have built their subculture around and work hard to protect continuity and canon, making sure what they are doing is authentic. What is interesting to these online subcultures is similar to that of fan-fiction writers in the way it brings people together to share and express. The internet provides a forum for bringing people of all different cultures together that is unprecedented and the result is a groups of like-minded individuals coming together and expressing themselves who would have never been able to do so before. 

Thus far, this post has highly praised fan-fiction, fandom, and the subcultures that it has created. However, there are some aspects that can be considered as negative. For example, in "Crowdfunding: A Spimatic application of digital fandom" Booth (2015) points out that some scholars argue that  aspects of participatory culture such as crowdfunding can actually take advantage of the fans and exploit their money, time, and work. I think, from this perspective, there is something to be said about participatory culture as a negative thing for fans and consumers. One example that comes to mind is the Doritos "Crash the Super Bowl" campaign, where audience members were encouraged to submit their own commercials for a chance for theirs to appear during the Super Bowl. Here are a few of the more humorous examples:

Now, this may seem fine and innocent, but through a more critical lens it appears that this competition is exploitative in the same way crowdfunding for major film and television production is. Here, instead of money, fans are being "exploited" for their creativity. I emphasize exploited because that's assuming you consider this and crowdfunding to be exploitation. Personally, I agree with the other scholars that Booth includes in the article, who point out that fans are well aware of their role and therefore are not exploited. I think the same way that fan-fiction gives people a level of agency and voice they have not had in the past, participatory culture driven by fandom allows fans the opportunity to play a more meaningful role in their favourite texts and brands.

I think ultimately fan-fiction and audience subcultures are so much more than a hobby and past-time for people. They work as a medium for expression and experimentation for people of all different cultural backgrounds in many different walks of life and transcend their surface level purpose. The pros out weigh the cons and audiences taking a more active role is allowing for more interesting texts and concepts, while simultaneously creating communities and bringing them together. Feeling stressed, misunderstood, confused, or curious?

Sources:

Booth, P. (2015). Crowdfunding: A Spimatic application of digital fandom. New Media & Society, 17(2). 149-166

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, Power. California: SAGE Publications.

Syfret, W. (2015, August 28). Fan Fiction is the Sexual Education I Gave Myself. Retrieved     from: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/fan-fiction-is-the-sexual-education-i-gave-myself

Interpreting Signs and Messages at Brock University

According to Ferdinand de Saussure, signs refer to things that they are not. A “sign” is defined by the interaction of the signifier (the form of the sign) and the signified (the concept the signifier represents). To better understand this concept, let’s break down a sign. Here we have the Canadian flag, which can be seen waiving in front of the tower at Brock University:

The signifiers of this sign are the physical things about it that can be seen. It is a rectangle made of cloth attached to a pole. On the cloth are two smaller red rectangles, and a red maple leaf. The signifiers of a sign can be seen as the way an alien from outer-space would interpret the sign. With no knowledge of its meaning or significance, they would strictly identify its physical characteristics (assuming these aliens can see). The signified meaning of this sign is that it serves as Canada’s national flag and represents our country. There is nothing inherent or natural about a red maple leaf and rectangles that suggest Canadian nationality, but that is the dominant meaning it carries due to human social relations and symbolic codes. The signified is subject to change at any time and possesses its meaning based on the shared agreement and understanding of society rather than its physical characteristics. 

A similar way of thinking can be applied to understand communication messages. When a message producer (for our purposes Brock University) releases a messages, they “encode” the message by having it conform to already existing rules and norms (is this relevant to students/faculty? Is it appropriate for us to weigh in on this topic? Will we offend anyone with this message?). It is then up to the message receiver (students) to “decode” the message and interpret it. In doing so there are two levels of meaning that can be interpreted: the denotative meaning (the literal meaning of the sign), and the connotative meaning (the contextualized understanding of the sign.) Let’s look at a promotional video from Brock University to better understand this concept:

 On a denotative level of meaning, this is a 15 second video with multiple pictures edited and placed together in a way that shows the actors involved as two different types of people. This message is reinforced at the end with the slogan “Discover both sides of your brain” and the Brock University logo. The way you understand this video at this level of meaning is very literal: Brock University wants you to discover both sides of your brain, and is showing one side of a person's face beside some sort of image. On a connotative level of meaning, one can start inferring their own “situational ideologies” to give this message a different meaning. As per this picture, scientists have identified that the right and left sides of our brains are responsible for different types of thinking. 

It is common for people to say they are more “left-brained” if they excel in mathematics or science, or “right-brained” if they excel in the arts. Brock University is demonstrating their commitment to honing both the analytical and artistic abilities of their students using an abstract visual demonstration of people and images that tend to represent prestige and intellect such as finance and professional sport, summarized by the slogan “Discover both sides of your brain.”  In order for the audience to achieve this interpretation of the message, they need to have some sort of background knowledge about how the brain works and why using “both sides” of it is significant or appealing. 

Now to be clear, this interpretation that I have explained is very much the “dominant-hegemonic position”, and assumes the message receiver decodes the message in the exact way it was intended to be decoded by the encoder. Some viewers could interpret the message from a “negotiated position”, where they acknowledge and understand the dominant code but have their own meaning shaped by other ideologies and experiences from their lives that may oppose it. For example, a student may see this and acknowledge that honing both sides of the brain can be useful, but doesn’t feel it necessary for his own education as he doesn’t want to waste his time honing analytical skills as a music major. There is also an “oppositional position” to be taken, where the decoder actively opposes or disagrees with the connotative meaning of the message. In this case, the decoder may think that honing both sides of the brain is a waste of time and doesn’t lead to a better, more rounded education as the video suggests. All three of these positions depend on the ideologies and experiences that the decoder references when decoding the messages. 

Understanding how different signs and messages can be interpreted and understood is important for University students. As critical thinkers it is crucial that we are not only aware of the different levels of meaning that these things have when decoding messages, but also of how others may interpret messages we encode and for what reasons. As audience members and content producers we almost certainly will find ourselves on both sides of the spectrum, and the more knowledge we have about how to effectively communicate and interpret messages the more successful we can be. 

Sources: 

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, Power. California: SAGE Publications.

Unknown. [brockuvideo] (2011, May 11) Brock University - Discover Both Sides of Your Brain [video file] Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4LraZT5cqo

Understanding the Success of Major Social Networking Platforms

Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram. What do these companies have in common? 

They have all at one point been valued at $1 billion dollars

They sell no tangible product and are free to use

What is it then that is so valuable about these companies? How are they making money? I could not answer these questions until I began to understand that these companies do have sales, but not to consumers. The users are the product, and the information that they disclose, whether they know it or not, is being sold to all sorts of different organizations. This concept is called “the audience commodity”, in which the users or audience are the product. Users of the aforementioned platforms are constantly sharing their location, interests, field of expertise, current school or job through posts, likes, and any other way that users can interact. These platforms are a well oiled machine and a dream come true for marketers, and I’ll explain why. First off, no matter what demographic you’re trying to reach, chances are they use social media. This video demonstrates some rather shocking statistics about just how ubiquitous social media has become:

Most of the world is putting their information online for anyone to see and or use. These massive technology platforms take this information, package it, and sell it to advertisers. Here’s where things get interesting: They then offer advertising opportunities to companies on the very platform they obtained the data from in the first place! They are quantifying their users information in an extremely complex way and offering an unprecedented method for reaching specific audiences. Historically, Neilson has quantified the television audience by reducing them to a simple binary: watching or not watching. This provides limited information to begin with, as watching a program doesn’t necessarily mean you’re enjoying it, and also completely negates the reality that people aren’t always engaged with what they are watching (ie. being on as “background noise”). It also operates using a sampling research method, as not everyone has a Neilson box in their home. Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram on the other hand face no such limitations. They have complex algorithms designed to consider every single user, so sampling is not necessary. They also have quantified proof of very specific interests and tendencies of their users with a level of nuance that is unprecedented. Which brings me back to my point, that the platform is a dream come true for marketers. With this model, everyone wins (except maybe the consumer, whose valuable data is being sold). Audience commodification via social networks is completely changing the way audiences are targeted by advertisers. Should we be worried about this? Are we being ripped off by these companies who are using our data to sell things to us? Surely, the free cost to use these wonderful platforms is worth the sacrifice, right? This article provides some interesting insight to how much are personal data could be worth: 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/apr/22/how-much-is-personal-data-worth

I think when considering how these companies have become so successful, its important to explore why people use them in the first place. We know how they are making their money, but what’s attracting the masses of information revealing users and keeping them around?

The uses and gratifications approach can be used to understand why and how audience members use different types of media. According to the theory, audience members are active and select different types of media to satisfy certain needs or desires. These audience members are aware of these needs, and consciously seek gratification through different types of media. While social media platforms don’t offer any tangible goods, the reason so many people use them could be to satisfy a need or desire. These platforms are full of information, whether it be pointless or useful, and the desire to consume this information is likely what brings in so many users. When they become part of the platform, they in turn disclose their own information for others to consume, and it works in a full circle. In the course textbook “Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, and Power” there are the results of a study that asked “Why do so many people use Facebook, what do they get out of it?” The subjects of the study had multiple explanations for the reasons they used the site such as to waste time, network, or keep in touch with family. It essentially concluded that Facebook could potentially gratify many different motivations, though the most prevalent use is as a social utility. For more information on the study in question here is a link to the full paper: 

http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2026/1897

Regardless of which needs social media platforms are gratifying, the reality is that they are diverse in their content and delivery while all sticking to the same social facilitation concept, and as a result are able to attract a wide variety of people, many of which will use multiple platforms to gratify the same needs. 

Through this analysis of major social networking organizations, I have identified some explanations for their financial success and massive reach. However, understanding the concept of the audience commodity and uses and gratifications and how they apply to this scenario provide some but not all of the possible explanations and motivations behind these massive organizations and why so many people use their platforms, and many communications theories and concepts can be used to provide a better understanding. 

Sources: 

Bumgarner, B. (2007). You have been poked: Exploring the uses and gratifications of Facebook among emerging adults. First Monday, 12(11).

Ehrenberg, B. (2014, April 22). How much is your personal data worth? Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/apr/22/how-much-is-personal-data-worth

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, Power. California: SAGE Publications.

Structuration Theory and the U.S. Presidential Election

3P73 Blog Post #1

Last week the highly anticipated United States Presidential election took place between Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump. This election cycle has been particularly polarizing between democratic and republican supporters, and the two candidates drastically differ on many issues. Both candidates have been the subject of serious scandals, and the media has played a large role in keeping the public informed and reminding us of their severity. This election is also significant because if Hilary wins she will be the first female president, and if Trump wins he will be arguably the most politically inexperienced president of all time. While the sheer novelty of these circumstances and many others that I won’t go into (Trump’s overt racism etc.) may not have people pleased or hopeful about the United States’ future, it undoubtably has them intrigued, perhaps in the same way that a bystander cannot look away from a horrible car accident. Regardless of why people are tuned in to this election, the reality is that they are. Neilson reported that a record breaking 84 million people tuned in to the debate via the 13 television channels that broadcasted it live, and this doesn’t include anyone who streamed it online or watched in a public place like a bar (Stelter, 2016). 

Due to its scale and significance, this election has become an interesting current event to consider through the lens of the ideas and concepts covered in this class so far. Last week in seminar, we focused heavily on hard vs. comedy news coverage of the election and which was more effective, which was more enjoyable, and why. I’m more interested in considering what Giddens calls the “duality of structure” (Sullivan, 2013) and how the traditional two party system has enabled traditionally unacceptable behaviour by the candidates, particularly Trump, that has many people asking “how did this happen?” The concept of “structure” refers to the way people reproduce social behaviours over time. These structures can best be seen in the way that long standing institutions stick to a certain way of doing things and as a result society conforms and follows these actions or beliefs. What Giddens infers is that these structures simultaneously “enable” actions and beliefs in the same way that it constrains them. (Sullivan, 2013). This diagram is a simple visual for structuration theory and how structure simultaneously enables and constrains actions:

I think that the two party system in the United States and the way it encourages polarizing stances on high profile issues like abortion, gun control and immigration has effectively “enabled” Trump’s hateful, xenophobic rhetoric and general incoherency by stiff arming more moderate, middle leaning politicians out of contention. 

Here’s what I mean by this. Below are two pieces of party propaganda:

Both pieces encourage their party supporters to vote for them regardless of the politician who’s running. The democratic piece speaks for itself, and the Republican suggests that if you are Catholic you must vote Republican, regardless of whose running and what their stance is on other issues. These are just two examples but this sentiment is extremely common for supporters of the respective parties. Pro-choice? You must vote Democratic, as most Republican candidates will run as pro-life. Gay people shouldn’t get married? Looks like you’re voting Republican, as Democrats tend to support legalization. Over the years the two parties have solidified stances on more and more issues, to the point where it is almost impossible for a moderate candidate who has mixed stances on issues to get nominated for one of the major parties, and running as an independent is essentially a guaranteed loss. It seems as though because of this the American democratic system gives off an illusion of agency when really there is very little. Yes, the public gets to vote, but they are forced in many cases to support what i’ll call ideological packages, which are the inseparable groups of ideas and beliefs that have been labeled Democratic and Republican. 

I truly do not believe that Trump would have as much support as he does if it wasn’t for the political structure enabling him. He effectively pandered and lied his way through the Republican primary nomination, and put life long Republican supporters in a predicament. While there are undoubtedly people equally as hateful and seemingly uneducated enough that would support Trump regardless of his party affiliation, Trump’s nomination has torn the party far more significantly than it has been in recent history. High profile Republicans like George Bush and John Kasich have publicly exclaimed that they will not support Donald Trump (Bandler, 2016), and for that I commend them. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all Republicans who disagree with Trump. Many high profile Republicans such as primary nominees Chris Christie and Ted Cruz initially refused to endorse Trump for president, but ultimately gave in due to pressures from the party, and any hopes of prospering in the future. I can only assume that this sentiment is shared by lifelong Republicans throughout the country, who are either single issue voters or too blindly committed to their party to follow their better judgement. The inner conflict that a longtime Republican voter may feel during this election is well articulated by Will McAvoy in the following clip from the TV show “The Newsroom”.

It seems as though the two party system in the United States has simultaneously taken away agency from voters and enabled radical candidates like Donald Trump. The structure has forced voters into selecting one of two polarizing sides, and enabled radical candidates to thrive under the party’s most loyal supporters. Next time someone asks you “how could this happen?” when talking about the presidential candidates, or any political system that is based around a two party system, consider using structuration theory to propose an explanation. 

Sources: 

Sullivan, J. (2013). Media Audiences, Effects, Users, Institutions, Power. California: SAGE Publications. 

Diamond, J. (2016, February 26). Chris Christie Endorses Donald Trump. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/

Stetler, B. (2016, September 27). Debate breaks record as most watched in U.S. History. Retrieved from: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/27/media/debate-ratings-record-viewership/

Bandler, A. (2016, June 9). Here's your full list of politicians that won't support Trump. Retrieved from: http://www.dailywire.com/news/6472/heres-your-full-list-republican-politicians-who-aaron-bandler