When discussion turns to the implications of user-generated content (UGC) on individual agency online, van Dijck (2008), prompted by Time’s 2006 Person of the Year (“you”), explores a reframing of traditional perceptions of users’ contribution. More specifically, van Dijck seeks to point out possible shortcomings in considering users “active internet contributors, who put in a ‘certain amount of creative effort’...’created outside of professional routines and platforms’”(p. 41) which exceed previous discussions of agency offered by Howard (2008) in terms of scope of consideration; van Dijck’s assertions depart from the vernacular dialectic in an approach to agency that examines cultural and economic perspectives and labor relations, and identifies YouTube as a fitting locus of exploration. Van Dijck supports the need for developing new approaches to agency by positing, “…user agency is a lot more complex than these bipolar terms (produser and co-creator) suggest; we need to account for the multifarious roles of users in a media environment where the boundaries between commerce, content and information are currently being drawn” (p. 42). Van Dijck’s agency then turns to three perspectives in order to move toward a more representative agency model:
1. The Cultural Perspective (p. 42-46)
The emergence of a participatory culture, fueled by a call for ordinary citizens to simultaneously produce and disseminate messages of their own, has cultural theorists celebrating the advent of new media technologies (p. 42). Van Dijck wishes to reframe this perception, however, as the notion of participatory culture as an occupier of digital space rests on arguably un-sound assumptions (p. 43). The first of these assumptions is that content generating internet users share a unique relationship with digital media, one not encountered with “old media” including television. This, according to van Dijck, is a “historical fallacy;” this assertion is supported by several examples of an “intrinsic engagement of the viewer with the medium” including bands covering popular songs, fandom, and reality TV (p. 43). What is different about new media, according to van Dijk, is sophisticated networking that affords users an opportunity to engage with the medium immediately. Moreover, van Dijk provides statistical support for the low rate of actual content contribution on sites such as Facebook; participation with media, it seems, does not necessarily yield active contribution (p. 44).
Another assumption supported by the cultural perspective of user agency is that of digital community, which is similarly cast as a hopeful perception lacking historical accuracy: brand communities and entertainment consumer groups carry the same cultural preferences as online communities, but we attribute potentials for grassroots mobilization to the latter. If we consider Hess’ (2009) findings about YouTube as a site for deliberation, is this an accurate assertion about online community? Are we, as van Dijck posits, giving online communities too much credit for their ability to mobilize users and offer an unprecedented sense of community involvement? Finally, in the same vein, what happens to the online community if we consider the final assumption discussed in this article regarding the role fulfilled by the institution in “steering the agency of users and communities” (p. 43)? (Structural features on YouTube serve as an example here, i.e. how the site might be navigated differently depending on the display of “Top Viewed” videos, etc.)
2. The Economics Perspective (p. 46-49)
While discussing economics’ role in shaping internet user agency, van Dijck offers a triangular model for understanding the spaces occupied by media producers, consumers, and advertisers (p. 46). This model has a long tradition, and our tendency to rethink consumers’ status (placing them in the same category as producers via UGC) is an oversimplification of this triangular relationship; producers as an institution still work very closely with advertisers in an increasingly intimate power exchange. Not unlike targeted advertising in traditional media, van dijck affords examples of sites that track usage preferences, and this is often coupled with personal information such as age, gender, and income. These pieces of “metadata…can be mined for various purposes, from targeted advertising to interface optimization, but the bottom line is that users have no power over data distribution” (p. 47). In this sense, user agency is slighted when new media companies steer users through structural elements such as cookies, IP address tracking, browser type, etc. (p. 48), and to ignore the increasing intimacy of the triangular relationship described above “downplays the tremendous influence of new media companies…” (p. 49).
Our classroom discussions frequently touch upon this point; there seems to be a general consensus that targeted advertising online is pervasive and influential. If we recall earlier course readings regarding interactivity and intertextuality, it appears that van Dijck’s claims are supported. We have similarly discussed notions of retracing site builder’s mental processes during content creation, with the interactive maps discussed in the Davisson (2011) piece as an example. What about the effect these elements have on agency, especially with regard to negotiations of power between media producers, consumers and advertisers or YouTube’s business model discussed on p. 48?
3. Labor relations (p. 49-54)
The final approach to understanding user agency offered by van Dijck considers labor and UGC, or online volunteerism v. paid content contribution. In this sense, even content (such as that found on YouTube), that is considered user-generated is not under complete user-control, even with rating and evaluation systems; these structures are subject to commercially-driven control (discussed above) and are increasingly subject to review by institution-supported professionals. This is especially true since Google’s takeover of YouTube, as, “…commercial stakes are rising and YouTube’s paid staffers are taking over an increasing portion of the sites moderating tasks” (p. 52). As site owners become increasingly concerned over an apparent “demise of the professional system” (p. 53), van Dijck warns us of a simultaneous demise of user agency, claiming, “…it is a myth to expect that amateurs or volunteers will gain more control over the monetization (or moderation) of their immaterial labour…On the contrary, user agency is defined more than ever by the capital-intensive and technology-driven economies of global, vertically integrated markets” (p. 54).
The concept of agency discussed here speaks to our previous discussions of vernacular v. institution. Are sites such as YouTube, which seemingly embody the flourishing of community and free amateur content just institutions under an attractive (vernacular) guise?
Whatever the case, I find an emergent theme throughout our classroom discussions and participation on this blog that speaks to van Dijck’s central assertion: when considering new media, a multifaceted approach subject to change in time with the technological and economic landscape is necessary for understanding their rhetorical implications.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Davisson, A. (2011). Beyond the borders of red and blue states: Google maps as a site of rhetorical invention in the 2008 presidential election. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14, 101-124.
Dijck, J. van (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content. Media, Culture & Society, 31, 41-58.
Hess, A. (2009). Resistance up in smoke: Analyzing the limitations of deliberation on YouTube. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26, 411-434.
Howard, R. G. (2008). The vernacular web of participatory media. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 25, 490-513.
First of all, nice citations. On the note of cultural perspective I understand that institutions do ultimately have the power to steer their users’ online agencies, but on the other hand ‘new media’ is not passive. Everything is relative to something else and if we compare old media to new media users have infinite more amounts of agency freedom in this new media. The extent of the vernacular level of old media is limited to reality television, game shows, and testimonials on the local news. It can be argued that the institutions we use for vernacular discourse can have influence by the way a sight is navigated or what content it features, but I think it over all is a great place for people to come together and form a “grassroots mobilization”. This notion kind of bleeds into the aspect of the economic perspective in that anything that isn’t user content is from an institution for example advertising. I think there is a clear distinction between what is user content and what is from an institution. I think the viewer themselves reacts differently to the two.
ReplyDeleteNice work Caylen.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting distinction I discovered in van Dijk's "Users Like You?" piece concerns society's concept of the term 'community'(2009). I have always been suspicious of rhetors who abuse this term when attempting to establish identification with an audience, especially in a cultural sense. For instance, "We in the (fill in the blank) community... blah blah blah" seems to me like an uninspired attempt towards establishing ethos and identifying with one's audience and cohort as well. Van Dijk's definitions of (and differences between)'taste', media, brand, and cultural community add a little twist to the conversation surrounding participatory culture where content trends easily divide particular communities(p.45).