Week 5. Making Cultures.

Traditionally, culture is something that has had a tangible aspect. Architectural wonders, literature, art, and music were once how we defined culture. But just like everything, the internet has changed this. While we once experienced a performance in a beautiful concert hall or a famous exhibit at an iconic museum, we can now also experience these events through our computers and mobiles. Live streaming, eBooks, Torrents, image galleries, and other various technologies allow us to access a world of culture through the click of a button.

An example of two of the most popular memes, 'Good
Guy Greg' and 'Scumbag Steve' (www.imgur.com).

But this is only how the internet allows us to explore the kinds of culture that has existed as long as recorded history. What about the culture that the internet has created? Social media giants such as Facebook and Twitter have developed social queues and terminology that is comprehended near unanimously amongst the users. The most distinctive and comprehendible aspect of the internet’s culture is its humour. The internet has created a unique new form of humour known as memes. They typically involve an image with text overlay captions and a humour that is usually widely relatable and often crude or in bad taste. Furthermore, people can belong to groups and use these websites to define their personality. With the sheer volume of knowledge users have provided about themselves to Facebook, the site has become a library of social behaviour and personalities. It is clear that one’s page is an accurate portrayal of their character (or atleast how they see themselves). 

References

http://www.facebook.com

http://www.twitter.com

http://www.knowyourmeme.com

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/

 Morrison, J 2003, ‘“The dark side of globalisation”: the criminalisation of refugees’, in R Robertson & KE White (eds), Globalization: critical concepts in sociology, Routledge, London, pp. 474–7.

Sun, W 2002, ‘Fantasizing the homeland, the internet, memory and exilic longings’, Leaving China: media, migration, and transnational imagination, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 113–36.

Week 4. Are the Olympics a Truly Global Event?

Well my initial response is yes, but the more I think about it, the less convinced I become. When Ali Safina claims the the Olympics causes people to "rise above national barriers and overcome language and racial hurdles" I find myself conflicted. I agree that this is undeniably the purpose and intention of the Olympics and the IOC, but in reality, this goal is not entirely achieved .

When these nations compete for glory, it is impossible for their bias' and agendas to not intervene and influence our impression of the games. NBC who are broadcasting the Olympics across the US chose to censor a portion of the opening ceremony that commemorated victims of the London bombings because it did not cater to the US audience.

(http://www.laughedge.com)

(http://www.madmagazine.com)

The Olympics presents the inequality of nations on the grandest and most blatant of scales.  Throughout the history of the modern Olympics, we've seen the Western nations dominate the medal tables. In fact, in 1972, when Munich hosted the games, Germany managed to come third and fourth. In more recent years we've seen China grow as a major world power and subsequently as one of the greatest competitors in the Olympics. Between the turn of the century and day 14 of the current London Olympics, China and the USA have both won 148 gold medals out of a possible 1141.  Out of over 200 competing nations, the world's two major powers have won a quarter of the gold medals since the turn of the century. In an attempt to make their countries proud, they have shamed and embarrassed those of less affluent nations.

References

 Singer, JB 2007, ‘Bloggers and other “participatory journalists”’, in C Friend & JB Singer (eds), Online journalism ethics: traditions and transitions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y., pp. 115–50.

http://www.preservearticles.com/201105136546/short-essay-on-the-purpose-of-olympic-games.html

Week 3. My "global media empire"

( http://www.winmentalhealth.com)

This week’s suggested topic is “my global media empire”. What would it look like? How would it operate? but to be honest, I think I’d rather discuss the effects of these media empires and I have two reasons for this.

1. Before fantasising my empire, I feel it’s necessary to outline how political climates can help media sources both prosper and erode.
2. I find myself morally opposed to the idea of a global media empire.

You see, one of the defining features of big media is that it has the ability to “limit diversity” because of the power it holds (Steven, P 2003). Not only can it influence our knowledge but it can control exactly what is or isn’t our knowledge, what we hear and what we don’t. We see this in companies such as Murdoch’s News Corporation and 
Fairfax Media.

While most of the world enjoys a level of diversity within the media, some nations are subject to news in a manner that can be compared to a dictatorship or a one-party state. Mexico’s ‘Televisa’ holds ties to the authoritarian rule of Mexico’s government, the PRI and Brazil’s ‘Globo TV’ was able to rise to prominence alongside the nation’s military dictatorship.

So how do we stop this? To me, the clearest answer is government intervention. Countries such as Britain and France play a stronger role in their own media service and insist on certain principles the media must uphold. But relying on a government creates its own issues. Much like media empires, they have a bias and an agenda. It seems the power and effect of the two can be closely compared.

Credit: Robert Milner

References

Singer, JB 2007, ‘Bloggers and other “participatory journalists”’, in C Friend & JB Singer (eds), Online journalism ethics: traditions and transitions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y., pp. 115–50.

Steven, P 2003, ‘Political economy: the howling, brawling, global market place’, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59.

http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/gina-rinehart-is-entitled-to-turn-fairfax-into-mining-gazette-conroy/story-fnda1bsz-1226400725349

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed

Week 2. Civilisation

(http://www.deviantart.com/)

The year is 4000 BC.  I found the city of Thebes in a strange land. I decide to study Pottery and the calendar so I can build Stonehenge. Nobody really knows who built Stonehenge but just imagine the Egyptian empire did. But how does this help me? Well this wonder increases my culture, causing the borders of my civilisation to expand. And there you have it, globalisation has begun.

Fast forward a few thousand years. Memphis and Heliopolis have also been founded, I’ve studied Mathematics, Philosophy, and Engineering and I’ve met Napoleon. My civilisation has expanded to the point where we are now neighbours. I choose to study optics and travel across the ocean. Perhaps the rumours of other lands are true.

( http://www.kotaku.com.au/ )

Fast forward to today. Those foreign lands were home to China, Denmark, and Russia. War has ravaged these lands this whole time and nuclear fallout is everywhere. However these civilisations have all been defeated by me, even though we were never at war. Rather, I defeated them through power of culture. My people have freedom, tradition, commerce, and happiness.

If you hadn’t realised yet, I was speaking of the computer game ‘Civilisation 5’, a personal favourite. The game is intended for entertainment, but it is also a study and a commentary on civilisation. On how it evolves, expands, and becomes global. The game is remarkably accurate to the world we live in. It shows how civilisations work together or fight for their own personal benefit. But in reality, they are interacting on such a scale where there individuality is no longer clear, and they become one world society. They globalise.

References

Alexander R. Galloway, 2006. Gaming: Essays On Algorithmic Culture (Electronic Mediations). 1 Edition. Univ Of Minnesota Press.
Steven, P 2003, ‘Political economy: the howling, brawling, global market place’, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59.

Week 1. What is Globalisation?

( http://www.travellounge.com/)

Globalisation is defining the world we live in on an unprecedented scale. We see this in the economy, culture, politics, and just about every other platform imaginable. But just what is Globalisation? This is perhaps the most speculated question of today’s earth. Either that or how much oil is there. Albeit, even the matter of oil relates to the globalisation of trade.

Martin Albrow claims “Globalization refers to all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society” (Albrow, 1990: 45). A remarkably prophetic definition considering it’s time. While the internet predates this quote, it still had not seen widespread use and popularity. Yet Albrow seems to predict what is to come and unintentionally provides a rather simple yet accurate definition of the internet: “A single world society”. Wouldn’t you agree that’s what we are? We have our own unique language, art, order, beliefs, and ideologies, all of which supersedes geographical boundaries. The internet has its own culture that has begun to spill over across the entire physical world. Every day, we see live tweets for events, Facebook check-ins at our favourite restaurants and QR codes on the street.

( http://www.graydigitalgroup.com)

Is this what globalisation refers to? Is the internet just the final step in a long journey to a global consciousness? Did globalisation first begin with colonialism, or when we first left Africa, or has it only just begun? These questions are still unanswered. The only consensus we seem to be able to reach is that we all want to know.

References

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2001-08-23/edit-page/27253043_1_indian-economy-foreign-direct-investment-export-growth/2

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/globalization-as_defined_by_rich_people_like_us/212089.html

Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7–21.