Finishing up with Jenkins

[AlexReid]

It doesn't seem like the Jenkins book as generated much conversation. Maybe it's because of the end of the semester. I'm not sure. However I think there are some really crucial issues to consider here.

In this week's reading, there was a chapter about Harry Potter fan fiction. You probably know that for many kids, maybe just a little younger than you, Harry Potter has been and continues to be a way into reading. In short, kids love these books. My daughter (9) has read all of them. They really jump-started her interest in reading, which had started to grow but was super-charged by Rowling's work. Through fan fiction, these kids get to turn their reading interest into a writing interest. Jenkins goes into the furor surrounding Potter and fan fiction from issues of copyright to the use of Potter by educators and librarians to the reaction of conservative Christian groups.

Jenkins writes

As we can see, the conflicts that gave rise to the Potter Wars do not reduce themselves to evil censors and good defenders of civil liberties. The churn created by convergence culture does not allow us to operate with this degree of moral certainty. All of those groups are struggling with the immersive nature and expansive quality fo the new entertainment franchises. In the age of media convergence, consumer participation has emerged as the central conceptual problem: traditional gatekeepers seek to hold onto their control of cultural content, and other groups--fans, civil libertarians, and the Christian discernment movement--want to give consumers the skills to construct their own culture. (204)

Where do you stand on this? Not just on Harry Potter or even on the issue of children and media, but more generally and for yourselves. It's easy to say if consumers or fans "want to" participate in fan fiction or discussion boards or whatever they should be allowed. That's much like saying "everyone has a right to his/her opinion." Maybe that's true but it isn't interesting. Nor does it mean that all opinions are created equally or that some might not be erroneous, misinformed, hateful, or otherwise destructive.

As you envision where our culture is headed--politically, economically, socially--do you see a world where it will be important for citizens to participate more? As we have seen from Shirky and Weinberger, social media networks create the technological opportunity for everyday Americans to organize into groups, produce information, and share that information on a global scale. Is this something that we have a social obligation to do? Of course in asking that question, maybe I should first ask if you think you have social obligations. Assuming that you think you do, is this kind of participation an important part of what we need to give as citizens?

[Vinny Thide]

I saw a couple of the Harry Potter movies on DVD with my younger brother. He is 15 and like your daughter, Prof. Reid, he too read all the Harry Potter stories. My parents raised my brothers and I in a Christian home and never once did they feel that the wizardry in Harry Potter would effect the way my younger brother thought. Both my parents and my brother knew that this was purely fiction and never did it occur to my parents that Harry was corrupting their son's thoughts. Along the same lines, my parents allowed my brothers and I to play so called "violent" video games. Again realizing it was fiction, the violene depicted in our recreational games did not make us menaces to society. I guess what I am trying to say is that the way my parents brought us up helped us to realize that the fictional things we played or read were truely make believe and that this sort of violence or wizardry was not a part of real life. I guess what I am trying to say is that if parents and cargivers pay attention to building character in their children, censorship of reading, television or any media children are exposed to would not be necessary. I know some may disagree with me and that is ok, as Prof Reid says "everyone has a right to his/her opinion."

Do I feel our culture is socially obligated to be involved in groups online or in real life? The answer is no. People should be obligated to care for themselves and those who are important to them. If people are so inclined to get involved in groups, all the power to them and they certainly should have the right to do this if they so desire. It is most certainly a personal choice. This includes children who should have the right to participate in groups that they want to, like the Harry Potter newspaper online, without religious organizations or school libraries telling them that they can't. I understand that parents have the right to sway their kids away from bizarre things like satanic worship, but again, that all comes with the upbringing provided in the home all along.

[AlexReid]

Thanks Vinny. To be clear, certainly not all Christians view Harry Potter as a danger to their children. If that were the case, the novels and movies wouldn't be so popular! Jenkins' chapter discusses specific Christian groups that take issue with the Potter books, as well as other things--role-playing games for example.

I am interested in your answer about social obligation. Clearly we have an obligation to follow laws, but in some sense that obligation is forced by the threat of punishment. If you see a small child crying and standing alone in a park, do you have an obligation to that child? You see an elderly person fall to the ground in front of you. Do you have an obligation to that person? I would say yes. And in a way, these are social obligations, but they involve personal, one-to-one, interactions.

But do we have broader social obligations? Do we have an obligation to ensure the perpetuation of our society and our biosphere? I would say that we do. I would say that it is unethical to live a life of profligate waste--driving around in a gas-guzzler, flying in a private jet, powering your 5,000 sq ft house--even if you can afford it. In evolutionary terms we are psychologically akin to our hunter-gather ancestors a hundred thousand years ago. It's hard to think in these broader terms, beyond our immediate kinship group. Economically our market also has a hard time seeing the long-term view. That's why we need ethics, because following self-interest has led us to the brink of ecological destruction. (It also hasn't done much for our short-term economy.)

Social media networks establish, at least in potential, a new realm of ethics. Arguably ethics and philosophy were born from writing technologies. Radio, film, and television introduced new ethical considerations, particularly for broadcasters. Social media networks open up a new realm of communication. In order to communicate in social media we need to develop a new sense of ethos, a new sense of the proper/expected way to communicate. But the larger question there is whether we have an ethical/social obligation to make use of these technologies.

[Vinny Thide]

I certainly would not see a crying child in the playground or an elderly person fall to the ground in front of me in an online community and I guess that is where my answer came from. I am baicaly a law abiding citizen and I would certainly help someone in need that I saw in front of me but I do not feel it is necessary to belong to an online community or "the Knights of Columbus" in order to help people. That is where my answer came from. I do recycle cardboard, bottles, cans etc and I am concerned with the environment and the earths future for my future children but I do not belong to any organization that promotes "green" living. I do this out of concern for myself and family and for our future; I don't feel pressured to belong to an ecology pro online community. I drive a 4 cylinder car and don't want to guzzle gas like the executive's of the major car industries who flew corporate jets into Washington to lobby for money to save their companies! I do this because it's more economical and I can't afford to pay for a car that only gets 8 miles to a gallon.

Are all of these social obligations? I guess in a sense they are. Do I have to blog on the computer about it or do I have to belong to an organization that promotes better ecological behavior, abiding by the law, and helping others? Absolutely not! If I want to, I certainly will, but it is not an obligation to do so.

[AlexReid]

I didn't mean to question you specifically. I was trying to speak of a "you" in the general sense. Sorry if that was not clear. I certainly agree that there is not specific obligation to blog. Thank god! Who would want to read all that stuff. There are plenty of blogs already.

No. Instead, we must be looking at new forms of social networking and engagement.

Take, for example, your concern about the environment. You mention recycling and driving a fuel-efficient car. That's a good start. But let's say you wanted to take this a step further and buy other green products, including local products. How might you find information about these things? How would you know which products were really green and which ones were just marketed that way?

Also, you are right on track about thinking of this as a global issue. It's fine and good if you and I recycle, buy green products, and try to limit our carbon footprints. But we also know it won't matter much if we can't get our neighbors, indeed all Americans, to participate.

Perhaps though, our discussion here is over the meaning of obligation. Where would a social obligation come from? To whom are we obliged? What are the consequences for not meeting our obligation?

In the case of the environment (or probably any issue), our sense of obligation is both internal and social. That is, we generate the feeling of obligation inside. It is the feeling that makes you carry your plastic bottle a little farther to the recycle bin rather than dumping it in the trash (or maybe stops you from buying the bottle in the first place, even though you are thirsty). However obligation is also social. We learn of the importance of thinking and acting to care for our environment through socio-cultural contexts.

In this sense our obligation is first to our selves, to our internal sense of ethical behavior. Then, as you note, we are obliged to future generations, as well as others in our community. There is not immediate, direct effect of not meeting this obligation. You can drive an SUV. You can toss your plastic bottle out the window as you drive. The consequences are long-term and indirect. That's why people have trouble processing them.

Perhaps the same issue lies with online communities. It can be difficult to recognize our ethical obligations to people who are not immediate to us.

So returning to my original question. If you are given the tools to organize socially, to produce and share information, to plan and carry out coordinated actions, do you have an obligation to use those tools to meet other social obligations. Maybe you feel an obligation in relation to the environment. Perhaps it is some other issue or concern. But the question becomes, are we meeting our social obligations, our ethical expectations, if we ignore these tools?

There's no right or wrong answer to the question. But for me, if I have a professional-ethical obligation to improve education, particularly in the humanities and writing, I think I should be using these tools to collaborate with others and share knowledge.

[Taylor]

On the Harry Potter issue I feel that people should make their own decisions about whether they read those books or watch the movies. Of course some will definitely not agree with Harry Potter, whereas others obviously will. People who share their opinions on a subject like Harry Potter will not always be equal but will definately be, as you said Professor Reid, erroneous, misinformed, hateful, and destructive. If people want to participate in fan fiction or discussion boards they should at least check out and be informed of what they are offering their opinion on. When I say informed I mean like they have read the books or watched the movie, not just read the reviews of others that share their opinion.

I think that a lot of people look out for #1, therefore they feel they do not have social obligations. Personally, I most definately feel socially obligated to participate in our culture to better it. For instance, Vinny mentioned helping someone in need that is right in front of him, that is how I would feel socially obligated. Or, if I used a product that I found to be dangerous I would warn others as much as I could so they would not get hurt. So, in terms of situations like these I feel socially obligated to participate as a citizen.

[Steven Richmond]

In response to Taylor’s posting I agree and stated in my posting that people should make up their own minds when participating in things such as fan fiction of Harry Potter. Those who agree should contribute and those who do not should not contribute. I also agree that it is important to not spread false ideas or misinform people whether intentional or not. People should do research before sharing thoughts and ideas. I see what you mean in terms of social obligations. In situations of danger there is an obligation but in other situations it’s the decision of the individual.

[Tim]

I've never read Harry Potter. Nothing against Rowling, I just have too many other books to read. But my best friend, whose probably read 2 books in his whole life just recently cracked open the Harry Potter books. He's read the first 2 or 3 in like a month and a half. For a person in their mid-20s who loathed reading, it's quite astonishing that he's taken a liking to it this late in his life.

I don't buy the whole Christians not accepting Harry Potter, because my aforementioned friend is a staunch Christian conservative. He won't swear, or go to bars. So I don't think reading Harry Potter is a huge compromise for Christians.

I'm with Vinny that you must feel social obligated to help those right in front of you. I'm not going to go to great lengths, but I'll help an elderly person lift something heavy in a supermarket, etc. The bottom line, unless you're too busy, it's really not that hard to assist those who are physically less fortunate.

[Vinny Thide]

I agree Tim, I feel that it is simply common sense to help someone in need. I don't look at it as a social obligation per se, just plain old common sense!

[Bryce Urbany]

Controversy surrounds us everywhere we go. With the opening of the internet gates just opens up another realm for even more controversy. A religious group being angry over a subject is nothing new. What makes this different is the social impacts made in the online community. With the Harry Potter issues, the Christians didn't even have a strong voice online. The strongest Potter War battle occurring online was between the copyright issues of the fan fiction and Warner Brothers. The issue of whether or not fan fiction is a breach of copyright is a touchy subject especially if it is for non profit. These kids submitting stories based upon a fictional world for purely recreational purposes should not be hassled. I can see where Warner Brothers is coming from when they say that someone might think the stories are authenticated material associated with the real Harry Potter but eventually they solved this issue peacefully.
On the issue of social obligation a lot of people may think that they don't have to help anybody but themselves. As humans being social creatures by nature it is hard to not help someone in need in the physical world. This could also be carried into the online communities. Like the case of Warner Brothers shutting Harry Potter fan sites down, the fans teamed up and helped each other combat the authority figures. These similar groups didn't necessarily have to help each other out but if someone shares the same feelings toward one subject strongly enough, they will help others when in need, much like humans do in the real world. It's not an issue of citizen obligations as much as they are obligations for being like species.

[Michelle Cilip]

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone has a right to agree, disagree, or agree to disagree. But no one has the right to take away the rights of another person; and to me, reading whatever book you want and discussing it and sharing it with others is a right.

As far as “the Potter wars” go, the teachers, librarians, and others who looked at the content of the books from a religious perspective were probably right, in their own right, about what they felt. That is not to say I agree or disagree, but especially with a subject like religion, I have no right to say whether or not what the next person believes is right or wrong, but they are entitled to say what they feel 100%. However, I don’t feel they had any right to try to ban the books from bookstores or libraries. If a parent didn’t want their kid to read Harry Potter then, good, don’t let them read it, don’t buy it for them. As for librarians, I don’t think that it is their job to police the content of books. I could argue all of the others in the same way.

As far as the studio saying that fans were infringing on the studio’s intellectual property: in this case, it was a bunch of children who, as far as I can tell, didn’t profit one penny from what they were doing. In fact, Heather Lawver initially spent her own money to essentially promote Harry Potter and garner the series more publicity. A thirteen year old was helping to do the job of the publicity department at Warner Bros. on her own dime. Wait, why are they complaining? If the fans were doing something using the Harry Potter name in order to monetarily profit in any way, then I understand why Warner Bros. would try to stop these activities. But a fake newspaper about their characters, for kids, by kids; it seems to me that this is free publicity, and a big “heck yeah” if children are learning in the process.

So let everyone have an opinion. If you don’t agree with the content of a book or movie, then don’t read it or don’t watch it. Someone else likely has a different opinion about it, and they have every single right in the world to read that book or watch that movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to take away the rights of another.

[Taylor]

Michelle, I agree that every person has a right to their own opinions, as much as they do to state their opinions. I'm not sure If I really got that message across in my first post, but that is what I was trying to say. For those individuals trying to ban Harry Potter books from libraries and book stores and such, is a little radical and not logical if you think about it. If these people do not want their children reading the books then just keep YOUR children away from them, not the rest of the population's kids. It is the job of the parents to sensor what their children do and do not watch, read, or whatever. Noone else has a right to do this for other's children.

[Tim]

Exactly. Atthough all of this Harry Potter business is new to me. As an avid reader it seems like I would've been in the loop. Oh well...