Remixing Remix Culture

REMI  XING

re·mix
“The activity of taking samples from pre-existing materials to combine them into new forms”(Navas, 2007).

re·mix  cul·ture
“The global activity consisting of the creative and efficient exchange of information made possible by digital technologies that is supported by the practice of cut/copy and paste” (Navas, 2007). “A mashup …remixes and combines content from a number of different sources to produce”(O’Brien & Fitzgerald, 2006, 1) …“a rich, diverse outpouring of creativity based on creativity” (Lessig in Koman, 2005).

"Music Remix Culture". Background image sourced via google images under Creative Commons license. Image by Kate Blundell

A Remix So©iety
Everyone’s doing it, whether we are discussing a recent TV show with a friend, citing references in an essay or remixing, changing and mashing-up existing content. Remix culture is not a new idea in society although advances in digital technology and the internet are propelling it forward at increasing momentum and, although vast, all of these forms of communication and expression are essentially remix culture. In a bid to put our own creative stamp on the world we not only generate new content, but remix and reinvent content in new and individual ways. “We now inhabit a ‘remix culture’, a culture which is dominated by amateur creators – creators who are no longer willing to be merely passive receptors of content” (O’Brien & Fitzgerald, 2006, 1). The media world is shifting from a sit, watch but don’t comment realm into a vast and ‘scary’ interactive, multifaceted creative society where anything is fair game…or is it?

Remix culture has faced similar criticisms and adversity that all new media technologies and creative medias have come up against in the past. The corporations throw their arms up in protest at the thought of content control and revenue generation being plied out of their ‘greedy hands’. Remix culture turns the accepted notion of content use on its head and this is no more graphically illustrated than in the metamorphosis of the Green Day album American Idiot into the remixed American Edit.

Ameri©an Edit
Long standing production companies argue that music remix and mashup’s (created without permission) are against copyright laws. They maintain that such ‘plagiarythms’ do not have creative substance and are therefore not a legal form of new expression (Vaziri, 2005). These notions stand to reason if the remix or mashup slanders the original artist or robs them of rightful credit and revenue. However, it could be argued that some remixes and mashups actually generate new interest in the original material and, due to their nature of new expression, would not impact on sales of the original materials.

The mashup album of Green Day’s American Idiot, released by Party Ben and team9 under the alias Dean Gray, is amongst the countless cases of remix culture clashing swords with older media institutions and practices. In 2005 the album, aptly named American Edit, was released solely on the Internet but was shutdown after receiving an infamous ‘cease and desist’ order after only ten days from Warner Records, Green Day’s label.

Green Day-American Idiot & Dean Gray-American Edit album covers. Images sourced via google images under Creative Commons license.

In a display of social revolt against the large media corporations, the fans rallied together and organised ‘Dean Grey Tuesday’ and many of the mashup tracks were uploaded for download to the public. However, with the brute strength of these older media institutions and the notions of copy right which they shoot in every which direction it is no wonder that artists such as Dean Grey face some major legal hurdles if they do not have prior consent to use and reproduce existing content in the form of permission or under the Creative Commons license, a voluntary open content license.

Digital Te©hnology: fuel for the fire
Remix culture is fundamental to creative culture. ‘Dean Grey’, along with many modern creative types, essentially utilised modern, digital media and technology in an effort to embrace a new form of creative expression and produce something that stands on its own.

These advances in digital technology and Web 2.0 have provided absolutely essential platforms for the extension of creative culture. Such platforms not only extend society’s access to data and other creative works, but do so in a convenient and efficient way. Andy Warhol’s work was once condemned and lambasted as ‘not art’ and consequently secured a prime place in art history and on the art market. Similarly, with remix, new creative spaces have evolved and left open the possibilities for a regenerated form of expression.

Web 2.0. sourced from Wikipedia, under Creative Commons license.

Although many would argue that remix culture is in fact traditional media’s arch nemesis, especially on the front of traditional revenue generation, the art of media publishing lies in the ability of the industry to embrace media shifts and adapt and evolve with them. Remix culture is a “reformist attempt to break down the user/producer distinction that dominates the culture industry, helping artists promote creativity rather than consumption” (Chance, 2005). After all, this is how creative society moves forward from pure consumerism.

Yours, mine or everyone’s?
So who essentially owns this enticing, remixable material that is laid out in front of us on the metaphorical ‘goodies table’ that is the internet? Under the Australian Copyright Act, content is the property of the creator of the work and is subsequently transferable to parties such as record companies and media industries. However, would it be fair to say that due to the communal nature of creative ‘making’, we should all have the ‘right’ to dip our hands in this content filled cookie jar?

David Shield’s asks in his book ‘Reality Hunger’, (a novel comprised of plagiarised works through an unacknowledged reworking of William Gibson), “Who owns the music and the rest of our culture? We do — all of us — though not all of us know it yet. Reality cannot be copyrighted” (Kakutani, 2010)  As such, all thought and expression is generated through our interaction with other people, so why should we close the door to this new form of creative content generation? As thoughts and mediums are building blocks in creative expression, so too are the expressions of others. Perhaps this acceptance of remix art by not only the people but also media institutions is the next step forward in creative culture.

Content has circulated from the common domain to private possession and, with great leaps and bounds in technology, is slowly oozing back into the hands of the public, where many argue it should be. McKenzie Wark, in ‘A Hackers Manifesto’, argued that “Whatever code we hack, be it programming language, poetic language, math or music, curves or colourings, we create the possibility of new things entering the world” (2004). Ironically, Wark’s manifesto has also since been remixed in ‘Hacker’s Delight’ by Paul Mathias.

©opyRIGHT or WRONG?
The major obstacle for this new content brought about by remix culture is copyright itself, which controls media content and money flows. Copyright laws pertain to be about author ownership and recognition; however, in the case of American Edit, it was Warner Records, not the artists who initiated the infamous ‘cease and desist’, purely to protect the royalties that were not being paid to them for the use of the material. Green Day themselves actually showed great interest in the project and later collaborated with U2 after the mashup of “The Bad Homecoming (Waiting)”. It was this collaboration that has brought forth the argument that artistic ownership should be in accordance with the artists themselves, not media giants.

It seems that along with the mediation of and shifts in social, political and educational changes due to digital technologies there also needs to be a reshuffling of the notion of creative ‘space’. Copyright laws may need to be modified to facilitate and encompass the growth of new wave remix culture that is becoming so prevalent in modern publishing realms.

Remixing the Rules
Arguments about how and why copyright rules can or should be remixed in order to either curb or encourage remixing, depending on one’s point of view, abound. In Australia major changes to copyright laws made in 2006 did little to clear the muddy waters of the perceived conflict between ownership and innovation with regards to remixing, except perhaps the timely inclusion of a new parody/satire defense. “It is most likely that mashups and remixes will have to be interpreted on a case by case basis to determine whether any infringement of copyright has occurred”(O’Brien & Fitzgerald, 2006, 4). Various suggestions have been proffered in order to illuminate this contretemps.

One such attempt to reshuffle this space is through the instatement of Richard Stallman’s “Copyleft” which lists content under the General Public License maintaining any material reused under this license must follow by these guidelines in the reproduced works. That is, maintaining this specific content’s place in the public domain (Heffan, 1997, 1487).

Suzor suggests that copyright law could be reformed in such a way that material that is “highly derivative” and does not compete with the primary market of the owner may be used without permission (O’Brien & Fitzgerald, 2006, 4).

At the far end of the spectrum, Jaron Latimer encourages others to “treat the fruits of their”… minds…“as fragments to be given without pay to the hive mind” because, within the “metaness” of the modern technological world, the mash-up is “more important than the sources who were mashed”(in Kakutani, 2010).

Sourced from Flickr, under Creative Commons license.

Somewhere between the traditionalist belief in control versus a market free-for-all there must be a compromise. Lessig believes that the law will inevitably “catch up” with the technology as a matter of course. Artists will be able to use alternative mechanisms to “mitigate” the constraints of copyright law (Farber, 2006) so that the Dean Greys of this world do not have to pay for multiple licenses and we can all benefit from their creativity and ingenuity. We must not control access to knowledge and creativity “just because we can”(O’Brien & Fitzgerald, 2006, 5). As history has shown, creativity knows no bounds.

The next mix
Media production and consumption continues to transform from a static medium to one that facilitates interactive involvement and remix culture is no exception. Vast technological advances not only allow society to function, but shift creative license back to the people. This shift generates an open platform where users and producers become blurred, but not without a constant struggle and a re-balancing act between new media forms and older media institutions and practices.

Modern medias are in a constant flow of regeneration and reinvention. New media expression never ceases to scare the traditionalists, but as time progresses these ‘exotic’ and new media merge into the familiar and the media and social panic begins all over again with the next ‘new-wave’.

As O’Brien & Fitzgerald mentioned, “the challenge for creativity and the economy of digital content production is the extent to which mashup and remix artists should be allowed to borrow – in a seamless manner – from the past to create the future?” (O’Brien & Fitzgerald, 2006, 1). Despite remix culture initially appearing to be at odds with older media institutions and practices today, this form of media production may be accepted as the norm of new creative expression tomorrow. However, while the power of the media monopolies still reigns, let’s not hold our collective breath.

References

Chance, Tom (2005). Remix Culture: Issues surrounding re-use in Creative Commons licenses, Free Software Magazine, accessed online 4 June 2010, http://fsmsh.com/1173

Farber, Dan (2006). Mashups and the law, ZD Net, accessed 4 June 2010, http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/mashups-and-the-law/2614

Heffan, Ira. V. (1997). Copyleft: Licensing Collaborative Works in the Digital Age, Stanford Law Review, 49(6), pp.1487-1521.

Kakutani, Michiko (2010). Text Without Context, The New York Times, accessed online 4 June 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?emc=eta1

Koman, Richard (2005), Remix!, O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference,accessed online 4 June 2010, http://www.oreillynet.com/policy/2005/02/24/lessig.html

Navas, Eduardo (2007). Remix Defined, Remix Theory, accessed online 3 June 2010, http://remixtheory.net/?page_id=3

O’Brien, Damien and Fitzgerald, Brian (2006). Mashups, remixes and copyright law. Internet Law Bulletin, 9(2), pp. 17-19.

Vaziri, Aidin (2005). Green Day Gets Mashed in ‘American Edit’, SF Gate, accessed online 4 June 2010, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/culture/detail?blogid=3&entry_id=1884

Wark, McKenzie (2004). A Hacker Manefesto [version 4.0], Subsol, accessed online 2 June 2010, http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors0/warktext.html

Debating Identity…

During, Simon. “Debating Identity” In Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction, Routledge: London, 2005, 145-152.

I am young, female, Australian, a student, middle class, brunette…. and the list goes on. Which of these identities is the most concrete? What parts of society and its sub-cultures do these labels slot me into?

The reading by During this week discusses the various identities an individual can adopt or be labeled with and in turn the way in which the individual, their identity and society interrelate with each other. Our identities differentiate us as individuals but, in doing so, also categorise us with others that share the same trait or traits. This raises the question of whether in identifying one’s-self are we in turn reducing our individuality? In saying this, it seems like an impossible feat to be ‘un-labeled’ by a species that focuses immensely on social relationships.

Identities in our society do, however, remain transient and there is much room for shifts and changes within and around them. They both gain and lose prominence and priority through the course of time and space as examined by During. In various cultures different identities are of different importance and prominence, for example in Muslim (religious label) culture one’s gender is of a greater importance than one’s job title whereas in Western culture job titles often reign supreme.The concept of identity allows us to make some sense of incredibly complex cultural social networks and our own internal states.

The plethora of ‘identities’ that are allocated to us throughout our lives moulds us into who we are, whether we like the idea of it or not. Society creates categories for each person and the categories an individual decides to accept as part of their perceived identity becomes internalised thus becoming part of who they are within themselves.

To eliminate ‘identity’ is impossible! Even a ‘recluse’ or ‘hermit’ may think they have escaped the grasps of the ‘labelling machine’ that is society, but in doing so have we not just named them and identified them regardless? Our very existence is one of categorization and identity. We as individuals need to be switched on to our given identities and realise that they do not make who we are as a whole, but rather contribute to it.

Multimodal Media and discourse.

Macken-Horarik, M. “The children overboard affair” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 26.2 (2003), 1-16.

According to Macken-Horarik ‘multimodal’ media is the most common type of western ‘news’ in today’s global society. Basically every front-page story uses interplay of both image and verbiage that works to shape our understanding and perception of the story at hand. Although this multimodal information does seem to create a greater understanding of a given event, the way in which these two medias are perceived together rather than as separate ‘stories’ can aid, for better or worse, the social discourse of society.

As Macken-Horarik notes, the “Children Overboard” case is a perfect example of how a political story has had a major effect on the discourse of Australian attitudes towards refugees. The verbiage itself was accusatory towards the refugees but, with the release of photos depicting children in the water and a navy officer rescuing them, now known to be from a totally separate instance, the combined impact on Australian perceptions was massive.

Even if these accounts have now been proven to be false, or supposedly ‘misreported’, the fact is that the text provided what many people thought of as fact and the image was left burnt on our memories. Whether intentional or not these types of multimodal media reports continue to have huge effects on discourse in society.

Through Macken-Horarik’s reading, the effect language and pictures have on society’s discourse can be seen not only in their relationship to one another, but also in the tools applied to these media. Our opinions are also influenced by the ways in which the ‘social actors’ of the piece have been portrayed to us by the journalist or media producer.

In many of the news reports that have predominantly influenced discourse, the reporter uses ‘genericisation’ in describing the participant(s). Genericisation, along with the allocation of essentialism (i.e. traits specific to groups of people), leaves the audience to view a whole group as theoretically accountable for the actions of an individual. We can also see in the case study of the “Children Overboard” that the navy officers were assigned a functionalist role, engendering a sense of duty and reason for their actions.

These tools of representation and grammar are deployed in every scope of media available to us. They can be used not only to ‘paint’ the most accurate picture possible, but also as a means to coerce us, the public, towards a certain viewpoint. Whether these coercions are intentional does not change the influence this multimodal media has on the discourse of society’s attitudes towards others and all facets of life.

‘Lessons in Grammar.’ Lets not scramble the facts!

Lukin, Annabelle. “Lessons in Grammar: how ideology shapes the report writing of war.” Education Links 66/67 (2003), 18-20.

With the global emergence of communication technologies there are vastly more media outlets reporting to us about world issues and events on a daily, if not hourly, basis. When sifting through scores of articles on a particular event it is fascinating to see the way in which one concrete happening can be explained and portrayed to the public from so many different angles especially with reference to the use of grammar and language, as examined by Lukin in “Lessons in Grammar: How Ideology Shapes the reporting of War”.

Lukin explains that one of the main areas of manipulation in report writing is the grammatical role assigned to a participant, whether that be acting, “actor” or being acted upon, the “goal”. In the case study of Ali, “the human interest story of the Iraq war” we are able to see the impact of this grammatical role on our perception of the story. We are either set up with the idea of the boy as both the actor and goal which subversively associates his loss as being brought on by himself, or in the case of Fisk’s article, ‘war’ is the actor and Ali is the one that has been impacted on. Both of these assignments of role, whether purposeful or not, have the potential to change the meaning of the account being reported.

Lukin’s writing allows us to gain a much greater insight into the complex ways in which a war report can be moulded and, in some cases, manipulated purely by the placement and use of language whether this is an intentional or an unconscious way of writing. I can certainly agree with this notion of our perceptions changing due to grammar use in articles; however, I am uncertain that these complex meanings would be greatly evident to the majority of the readers.

I think it is important in a time of technological media change to remain objective and selective in our interpretation of the ‘news’ we are exposed to through this array of perspectives.This article serves to reinforce the idea that we, as writers and audiences, must be aware of the subtlety of writing techniques and the powerful influence of language as a tool.

We must try to be sure not to scramble or confuse the facts.

Media gods…

Media and the notion of the ‘machine’ have almost reached the point of becoming a new belief system for modern society….

A network of endless information capacity where we look for ‘the answers’…But aren’t these answers self generated and pre-programmed into our ‘media gods’?

How far will the machines capacity to think really extend?

 

As Dylan Moran said:

“Soon we’ll be walking through the front door, the fridge will take our picture, the radio will tell us what to do and where to go and we’ll be having what the egg beater wants us to have for dinner”…

 

Has media become a modern day religion?

The Extended Audience

Couldry, Nick. “The Extended Audience: Scanning the Horizon” In Gillespie, Marie. Ed. Media Audiences. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2005, 184-196 & 210-220.

As explained in Couldry’s The Extended Audience through the constant technological changes occurring in media and its distribution, the audiences’ role has shifted to a much more active one not only in the viewing of media but also in the production and altering of media content. This technological shift has thus caused a ‘social/spatial change’ from ‘mass audience’, as quoted by Abercrombie and Longhurst, to an extended audience with access to media in all facets of life, greatly increasing the reach of media and recreating what used to be regarded as an audience into a much more individual experience.

As Couldry argues, audience participation and their role have become so diverse that is it becoming difficult to define what it is to be a modern audience. When our everyday lives have become so intrinsically connected to media it is almost impossible to differentiate between when we are and are not actually participating as an audience, whether that be active or passive.

With this emergence of ‘active audiences’ there has been a shift from centralised hierarchical power of media production companies to a more horizontal give and take relationship between the audience and these ‘big wigs’! The audiences’ norms, values and beliefs in a society shape the content of media, however the way in which this content is portrayed to us and what is seen as worthy to broadcast is still up to ‘them’! With such a wide range of media forms available to us as a mobile audience through sites such as Youtube we are now melding the roles of producer, actor and audience into one.

However, although there appears to be a diminution of producers’ control over content and access as Couldry mentions, for some reason, we still see these ‘extraordinary’ places of media production maintaining a hold on the media industry by their ability to generate alternate revenue channels through the creation of ‘tourist’ destinations and the ever present placement of subliminal product endorsement.

Couldry’s reading demonstrates the ever-changing relationship between the audience and media. As media becomes more dispersed and accessible, our role as an audience extends to almost all platforms of everyday life. This shift has greatly increased our role in not only the viewing of media, but in our own interaction with and contribution to it. However, in saying this, every step we take towards taking the power back from the ‘industry’ seems to be counter-acted by industry produces finding new ways of profiting from media, thus maintaining their strangle hold on media production and distribution.

Informationalism, Networks & Network Society

Castells, M. Excerpts from “Informationalism, Networks and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint” From The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, pgs. 3-7 & 36-45.

From Castells’ reading we can gain an understanding of how communication networks have evolved over time from being, essentially, a “fundamental pattern of life” centralised around power figures supplying a vertical information flow to, with the growth of technology, multidirectional systems of constant information transfers within and between separate entities or sections referred to as nodes. These nodes, or spaces, can be ether included or excluded according to the need for and the functionality of them within a network.

When thinking about the social networks that we are all linked to it is easy to see that with the notion of informationalism it is imperative for us to stay ‘connected’. If we are not accessing information, then this information loses its relevance. Networks allow us to maintain continuous access to a huge plethora of information as seemingly durable platforms for this transfer of knowledge. However, on examination of the idea of network survivability, questions arise as to whether these networks would remain in ‘ether space’ if they were to be disconnected at the source.

Castells also discusses the now virtually instantaneous information flow between network spaces which change the sequences that we once measured social time by. These “spaces of flows” have increased the efficiency of communication networks in our ‘fast-forward’ society, but have thus disoriented our ‘clocks’, melding one happening into another in a seemingly eternal web of “timeless time”. I can access the ‘facebook’ social network and view a stream of past, present and future happenings simultaneously. “Node 1 is feeling tired”, “Node 2 has posted an event for next week”, “Node 3 has uploaded photos from last years trip”. With communication networks functioning outside the boundaries of time, the demands on the individual to try keep up escalate at an increasingly impossible rate!

Social networks have created a new, cross-cultural global society. For the individual person, this creates an interesting point of self-definition. Things such as nationality, now give a person a point of difference in a global context but this works hand in hand with connecting us to a new network of people with the same differentiating point! The culture of this global social network as a whole can only be seen as a shared interest in communicating and informationalism. We connect ourselves in order to access these flows of infinite knowledge.

Essentially, this reading provides the idea that technological social networks are not an addition to knowledge and information, but they are a greatly extended way for global society to access this knowledge almost instantaneously. They are also a means of connection and communication between close friends and the greater public, allowing us to feel connected and in sync with the wider world! Society seems to have grown accustomed to information and communication at the click of a button.

Week 5 “Mobile Media & Space”

Volker, Clara. “Mobile Media and Space” Pgs. 112-119.

 

In “Mobile Media and Space” Volker discusses the idea of a space as being recognised by interactions and mobility on given places in our world, whether these be physically tangible or a form of interactive ‘cyberspace’ developed as a sort of alternative reality. Reality seems to now consist of media space and physical space morphed into one co-existing realm through our interactions with them as “active places”.

With the introduction of  ‘mobile social softwares’ the boundaries between the virtual world and reality are being constantly crossed in a type of rebound effect. A virtual space is used to create a link to a physical space; a person interacts with the physical space and is thus redirected back to this digital information hub; which then informs the participant about their ‘real’ surroundings!

McLuhan described mobile media as “our extended nervous system”. This sense of connection to the ‘cyber’ world seems to have become imperative to the way we function within society! If I have so carelessly forgotten to charge my mobile phone, or find myself without Internet access, I can’t help but be overwhelmed with a sense that something is not right! This dependency on mobile media stems from a modern world in which we have become accustomed to a constant flow of information in and between the reality and virtuality of an ‘ultra real’ space.

Society has reached a point where we need instant knowledge and gratification. We want information and we want it now! With the constant emergence of new, faster technology and media, why wait until you’re back at your desk to research a place or contact a friend! This greed for knowledge is in a sense numbing our senses to the ‘outside’ world. What need is there to pay full attention to our surroundings when by scanning a barcode we can get a full rundown in the palm of our hands!

This form of supplementation has produced a new way to locate both ourselves and the tangible spaces in and around the places we live. Virtual labels or pinpoints link through vast networks increasing our reach in society to an endless catalogue of information and communication.

Rather than functioning purely as a singular space, mobile media and cyber space have evolved to allow us to interact with them in a way that in turn creates new and increasingly diverse spaces. Thus the boundaries between the realms we once knew as reality and ‘cyberspace’ seem to be constantly blurring as the two  intertwine and reform our modern lives. Where will the need to extend and connect these two entities end? In the long run, will reality have any boundaries at all?…

‘MY’ week 4 reading blog

Hay, James. (2009). “My Space?” Television and New Media.10:1, 72-76. http://tvn.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/10/1/72

In James Hay’s My Space? he brings forth the idea of media as transformed from separate entities into new, complex “intersecting networks, economies and rationalities”. Society was once in a position to primarily observe media and its content, but with the emergence of interactive networking sites such as My Space and Facebook we now have the ability to actively participate in and contribute to the creation and dissemination of the content provided through modern media. This at once broadens our connections with macro society, but in doing so we are making the ultimate trade off, access versus privacy!

With the advent of “auto mobility” in our communication systems comes the notion of us becoming not only masters, but in-turn slaves to our constant communication companions. Our individual lives have become centralised around a new routine of media ‘dictatorship’. We wake up to an alarm on our mobile phones, check Facebook with breakfast, download lecture notes for uni and proceed to blog online, between making plans with friends through the ‘ether’. Modern media facilitates technologically mediated communication but it also isolates us from the ‘real’ world and ‘real’ interactions. Instead of a genuine hug, we now receive a screen message informing us we have been ‘poked’!

As Hay says, these online applications allow us to “self-manage”, “self-monitor” and “self-govern”. We are essentially provided with a generic template to market and promote ourselves to attain a sense of citizenship and group membership. By adhering to these templates and monitored channels of communication we are in a sense following group laws, constructs and constraints. The total cynic may envisage a future where people are physically isolated but encapsulated in a plethora of technological media webs and networks!

A balance needs to be struck between the advantages of instant and constant communication and the disadvantages of personal insulation and threats to privacy. How much do we need people to know about our personal circumstances and lives?

 

NEW MESSAGE RECEIVED: “KATE HAS FINISHED MEDIA BLOG AND IS GOING TO READ A BOOK, BUT FIRST I MUST CHECK MY FACEBOOK”

z3256624

‘Domesticating Domestication’.

Silverstone, Roger. “Domesticating Domestication. Reflections on the Life of a Concept.” In Berkers, Thomas, et al, eds. Domestication of Media and Technology. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press, 2006, 229-116.

In “Domesticating Domestication” Silverstone discusses what it really means for technology to become ‘domesticated’ as a concept and the ramifications on the home and society. He also looks at the continuing relationship between technologies and people in the household and the idea that it is impossible to manipulate technologies and media to fit into our domestically constructed ‘home’ space, without these technologies in turn affecting us, and redefining what is meant by our private space!

Through ‘commodification, conversion, objectification and incorporation’ the domestication of technology has broken down the wall between our micro and macro worlds. It brings socialisation to a new, less public ground, but in doing so, makes the home a place less closed off and secure to the individual. Society has become reliant on technology and the adaptation of new technology to connect us to this sense of home. Even when afar, distance and proximity are minimised, allowing access to security and belonging wherever we may be. We are not only allowing the public space into the private, but the boundaries of domesticity and home life have been blurred, making these boundaries sometimes unrecognisable. People associate domesticated technologies with this ‘home’ space, a place in which we can entrench ourselves and find a sense of self.

Silverstone also looks at the idea of ‘mediation’ and ‘moral economy’. We attempt to mediate the type and amount of external communication and technology allowed into our households, in order to maintain our sense of moral economy within the domestic arena. This filter is an attempt to keep within the acceptable boundaries presumed to be shared by the wider society, (Maren Hartmann 2005) (Knut Sorensen Chapter 3). The domestication and association of new technologies and media into our micro and macro worlds shapes morality and the way we position ourselves in a social construct. This is reflected in the way we relate to others and society as a whole.

The author seems to believe that the changes we are allowing are limited, as we are reluctant to fully embrace the capabilities of these new technologies. Rather than letting them run wild, we constrain and tame these technologies into a form that will best ‘fit’ into the constructs of our homes. However, by incorporating these new media into our domestic realm we are in turn creating a shift in the way we go about our everyday life, whether we notice it or not!

After all, think about how you are reading this now…