Thank you to those of you who have responded to my email in which I suggest (on the basis of a thorough literature review, I should add) that the terms community and network are at present the paradigmatic sociation notions in the study of Internet appropriations, and that it is high time that we broaden our Internet sociation lexicon. It wasn't my intention to start a discussion on the relative merits or demerits of the notions of community and network. This, I think, would only reassert their centrality. What I think is more urgent for us as a field of research and theorisation is to explore other Internet sociality concepts, other analytical tools off the beaten community/network track, e.g. social field, action-set, sodality, arena, etc, and see where they may take us. Are other Internet social scientists working outside the community/network paradigm? If they are, what concepts are they using, and why? That said, and at the risk of undoing what I've just tied together, I can't resist responding briefly to Denise Carter's posting on the notion of community:
surely community is not obsolete - but merely changing - it remains, as ever, 'a slippery concept' [...] (Amit and Rapport, 2002: 14), they suggest on the one hand that the notion of community is too vague and too variable to be of much use as an analytical tool, and on the other that the appeal of community is dependant on tensions between what they call experiences of sociality and platitudes of collective belonging (Amit and Rapport, 2002: 14)"
This is precisely the trouble with community *as an analytical tool* when we try to use it to understand social actualities, that it is 'too vague and too variable'. On the other hand, community *as a folk term*, i.e. as a term used by non-social scientists (including many politicians, cyberactivists and self-taught researchers), it remains an important notion in that it does indeed resonate with people's actual experiences and/or wishes of 'collective belonging' -- at least in Anglophone countries, but not necessarily so in other societies, eg in my experience, urban Spain or rural Sarawak (Malaysia). So yes, by all means, let us integrate into our Internet analyses, where appropriate, the uses people make of 'community' and similar terms in other languages (if they are locally salient, that is), but always bearing in mind that this term is too imprecise to be of much use to social theorists trying to identify and understand social formations. John Postill Sheffield Hallam University, UK http://www.media-anthropology.net/
Dear AIR-ers - A great discussion going here. I just came from the Georgina Born (Emmanuel College, Cambridge University) Masterclass at the Cultural Research Network, University of Queensland. She has other dates to follow in Australia. I highly recommend looking into the CRN, lots of stuff going on there. She uses the term media ecologies to describe her work with the BBC. That reminded me of information ecologies as offered by Bonnie Nardi et al. I am an ICT agnostic. I don't use it, but it doesn't bother me when others use it. In my thesis I use networked technologies. Wimpy, but at least it's not another acronym. But I wasn't too happy with media ecologies. Yes, they grow, but ecology is actually means the STUDY of ecologies. Not the systems themselves although that distinction has faded in the common parlance. As I thought about it, I was happier with media ecosystems. The systemic can address issues of infrastructure, political economies, and information in a way that I think the term media ecology does not. Ok, cheers, Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD thesis in revision, School of Environ. Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tuesdays: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 or Mobile 0427 245 497 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/rsm/staff/pages/drall/index.html Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
As I thought about it, I was happier with media ecosystems. The systemic can address issues of infrastructure, political economies, and information in a way that I think the term media ecology does not.
media ecosystems ~= evolving networks ~= contextual know-ing ? Seems to me that these systems are all more closely related than people working inside them often are willing to give credit for. We win a lot by paying attention to the interrelatedness and dynamics... --e
Media ecology is neither new nor original to this person. It's a well established approach to media and communication studies founded on the work of McLuhan, Postman, Ong and others, with its own association, listserv, journals, publications, and conferences. See http://www.media-ecology.org/ .....Alex Alex Kuskis PhD e-Scholars.ca Adjunct Professor of Communication Gonzaga University ----- Original Message ----- From: "Denise N. Rall" <denrall@yahoo.com> To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] conceptual lexicon
Dear AIR-ers -
A great discussion going here. I just came from the Georgina Born (Emmanuel College, Cambridge University) Masterclass at the Cultural Research Network, University of Queensland. She has other dates to follow in Australia. I highly recommend looking into the CRN, lots of stuff going on there.
She uses the term media ecologies to describe her work with the BBC. That reminded me of information ecologies as offered by Bonnie Nardi et al.
I am an ICT agnostic. I don't use it, but it doesn't bother me when others use it. In my thesis I use networked technologies. Wimpy, but at least it's not another acronym. But I wasn't too happy with media ecologies. Yes, they grow, but ecology is actually means the STUDY of ecologies. Not the systems themselves although that distinction has faded in the common parlance.
As I thought about it, I was happier with media ecosystems. The systemic can address issues of infrastructure, political economies, and information in a way that I think the term media ecology does not. Ok, cheers,
Denise Denise N. Rall, PhD thesis in revision, School of Environ. Science, Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW 2480 AUSTRALIA Tuesdays: Room T2.17, +61 (0)2 6620 3577 or Mobile 0427 245 497 http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/rsm/staff/pages/drall/index.html Virtual member, Cybermetrics Group, University of Wolverhampton, UK http://cybermetrics.wlv.ac.uk/index.html
On Monday 31 July 2006 10:55, Alex Kuskis wrote:
Media ecology is neither new nor original to this person. It's a well established approach to media and communication studies founded on the work of McLuhan, Postman, Ong and others, with its own association, listserv, journals, publications, and conferences. See http://www.media-ecology.org/ .....Alex
Even has a WP entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology
participants (5)
-
Alex Kuskis -
Denise N. Rall -
elw@stderr.org -
John Postill -
Joseph Reagle