Difference

							Digital Youth


     Remarks
T.J.M. Holden
Panel 3: Digital Difference

                   Sunday, June 22nd

                    13:00 - 14:30 p.m.



                  Thinking through
                         Difference
About Me, On this Panel

Originally I was asked by the organizers to
  present something at this conference, but . . .

That was kind of like asking Ringo to do a drum
  solo.
Imagine David Slater as Paul here:
“you know, Ringo . . .you could go -- da-dupe,
  ba-dupe, da-dupe…”

(Believe me, no one would be duped by that)
 About Me, On this Panel
Anyway . . . once it became clear that I had nothing
  to offer, the organizers said:
  “well, hey . . . There’s always commentary . . . “
Which is why I sit before you in the role of
  commentator
Soon it should be abundantly clear that they might
  have been better off with Ringo as a
  commentator
But, it’s too late to rescind the offer
And besides, this shouldn’t take longer than your
  average Led Zeppelin drum solo
    About Me, On this Panel
   I come to this panel with a number of intellectual
    caps:
    –   Communication researcher
    –   Social theorist
    –   Mediated sociologist
   My work is primarily situated in Japan, although I
    also have looked at other Asian countries, such
    as Malaysia, and Asia in general
    –   Mostly in relation to matters of contextualized
        globalization
   In these comments I will try to don these various
    caps
About Me, On this Panel
My claim to inclusion, perhaps, was a chapter in a
   book on “Global Youth Culture” (2007)
There I presented an ethnography of youth cell
   phone use in Japan
I dubbed these users “adolechnics”
  –   Users with clearly distinguished differences from
      other mobile phone users in Japan
and presented the multiple ways that keitai worked
  to mediate identity
  –   Mobile phones served to nurture and advance their
      difference
Adolechnics’ 4 Levels of
“globality”
In concluding, I theorized 4 “levels” of
  youth mobile phone use vis-à-vis
  globalization:
  – The Macro-Global
  – The Global-Local
  – The Micro-Global
  – The Micro-Local
The Macro-Global
 keitai simultaneously connects adolechnics
  to larger social, political, economic and
  moral worlds;
 above all:
    – the consumer-capitalist economy, and
    – the popular cultural realm.
The Global-Local
 While adolechnics actively engage in
  consumption via mobile phones . . .
 they consume without being overly
  consumed with the idea of consuming.
 They share the joy of consumption:
    – with mutually linked, though independent,
      consumers
    – All engaged in identical acts of consumption.
The Micro-Global
   Adolechnics devote considerable time teaching
    one another:
    –   how to belong to their groups
    –   what it means to be a young adult-in-the-making
    –   to be a consumer of popular culture
    –   to become a member of an economic and cultural sub-
        group within society.

   So much of adolechnic behavior can be
    understood as a process of mutual instruction and
    learning, reinforcing, integrating, connecting,
    group-forming.
The Micro-Local
 Adolechnics exist in atomized capacity – as
  individuals.
 They wield keitai as a means of defining self and
  expressing agency.
 For the adolechnic, the private social worlds that
  they create are amae-ful
 Through the acceptance of others, each individual
  is empowered to be:
    –   Optimistic
    –   Inquisitive
    –   Playful
    –   Trusting
    –   Externally-oriented
    –   and pro-actively social.
About this Panel
Well, enough about ME!

As for this panel . . .

 The common name associated with digital --
  anything -- in academic discourse this past
  decade has been “divide”
 The fact that this panel consciously selected
  a moniker of difference in association with
  “digital” cannot be missed and should not be
  minimized
About Divides
“Divide” meant a schism
 Often defined by race, age, gender, or
  geographic location
 And this worked to organize research for over
  a decade showing the various “divides” and
  “secondary divides” in place, in particular,
  between:
   – Nations North and South
   – Between nations in a region (for instance,
     in Asia)
   – Within any one country (for instance, the
     US or Japan)
Typing Divides (DiMaggio and
Hargittai [2001])
1.   Technical means (software, hardware,
     connectivity quality);
2.   Autonomy of use (location of access,
     freedom to use the medium for one's
     preferred activities);
3.   Use patterns (types of uses of the Internet);
4.   Social support networks (availability of
     others one can turn to for assistance with
     use, size of networks to encourage use);
5.   Skill (one's ability to use the medium
     effectively).
Typing Divides

In my earlier work on adolechnics, all 5 of
  these elements appeared in youth
  mobile behavior

  –   Denoting not so much a “divide” as points
      of demonstrable difference

  –   It is this theme that I wish to emphasize as I
      move through the rest of these comments
Typing Divides (Norris [2001])
3 Levels:
1. the global divide
     –   encompasses differences among industrialized
         and lesser developed nations;
2.   the social divide
     –   points to inequalities among the population
         within one nation; and
3.   A democratic divide
     –   refers to the differences among those who do
         and do not use digital technologies to engage
         and participate in public life.
Embodied Divides

We see these divides in each of the works
  on this panel, by turns.
For instance:
Hjorth’s work points us toward the “global
  divide”
Qiu’s work underscores the “social divide”
Cleveland’s work helps us explore the
  “democratic divide”.
Comparative Divides I


Much work on digital divides has been
 comparative
 -- as we saw in the work of Lin and
 Jung, yesterday
Comparative Divides I
Ishii and Wu (2006) compared
  Taiwanese and Japanese youth
  – Taiwanese youth use the Internet to a
    much greater extent than Japanese youth
  – even though broadband services are
    cheaper and faster in Japan
  – Japanese youth use text-messaging
    services featured on mobile phones more
    than their Taiwanese counterparts.
Comparing Divides I

 While Taiwan has developed a unique BBS
  (bulletin board system) culture, Taiwanese
  have a comparatively stronger degree of
  trust in the Internet than the Japanese.
 The Internet culture in Japan is more
  individualized.
 Japanese adolescents and young adults
  tend to avoid direct communication, resulting
  in the promotion of a unique mobile media
  culture among the Japanese youth.
Comparative Divides I
The findings suggest that:
 despite the worldwide standardization
  of communication technologies
 the two countries have created
  different media trends for their youth
 due to culturally different personal
  relationship patterns
Comparative Divides II
Comparing three “high-access countries”
 in East Asia – Japan, South Korea and
 Singapore -- Ono (2005) found that:
  – inequality in ICT access, use and skills
    reflects pre-existing inequality in other
    areas of economy and society in the three
    countries.
  – Not all of which are the same in the 3
    countries
Comparative Divides II
Specifically:
 In Japan and South Korea, women are less
  likely to use computers and the Internet than
  men.
 In Singapore, gender inequality is less
  pronounced, but the separation between the
  users and the non-users by education and
  income is considerably larger than in the other
  two countries.
 Moreover, there is a clear divide across
  demographic groups when it comes to its actual
  usage.
  –   Access therefore does not translate into usage in
      these three countries
Japan’s Secondary Divide
Japan’s Secondary Divide
The previous graph shows the
 breakdown of demographic usage of
 the internet.
  – Over the last six years, almost all age
    groups have increased their share of total
    home PC access
  – SAVE FOR 20 year-olds, whose share
    DROPPED from 23.6% to 11.9%
Summarizing About Divides
In short:
  – Divides exist
  – They can be evaluated in numerous ways
  – They differ both within and across
    countries
        Thisis especially true in Asia where there is
        great variation in economic, political, social,
        and ethnic configuration
  –   There seems to be a need for further
      conceptualization of digital phenomena
The “Difference” Difference
 Rather than a divide, the idea of difference
  takes the emphasis away from schism --
  conflict or disjuncture.
 The emphasis is on characteristics
  associated with use or non-use
    –   Certainly, some of this may be embodied in
        geographic location, racial characteristics,
        gender, and economic condition.
    –   And by comparing the papers by Mouri and Wu
        (yesterday) we can easily appreciate the
        differences in use of mobile between Japan and
        Taiwan
The “Difference” Difference

   And each of these latter elements we saw in
    our papers this session

   However, the emphasis on difference opens up
    analysis:
    –   In ways that “schism” might not
    –   And in more positive ways
The “Difference” Difference
For instance:
 in Cleveland’s emphasis on how racial
  imagery services a more subversive, less
  reactionary political agenda
   – This evinces society’s complex
     “sectoral” organization, that enables
     two “contradictory” elements to stand
     side by side, at once.
     Something  that we all puzzled through
      yesterday and heard a partial answer from
      in Davidson’s paper
The “Difference” Difference
For instance:

   in Hjorth’s highlighting of a particular user group, which
    opens into a discussion of intimacy
     – A key feature of other work on cell phone (I.e. Ito
       [2005])
     – But a larger feature of Japanese media, a I have
       shown in my work on television

   Where Hjorth’s work is significant is in demonstrating
    the unique forms that intimacy can take in this particular
    user group
     – Thus, while intimacy may be a central feature of all
       Japanese media, it is liberated in unique ways by this
       particular medium for this particular user group
 The “Difference” Difference
For Instance:
 While Qiu’s paper accentuates the economic . . among
  his “have-nots” are non-economically delineated social
  groups:
   – school drop-outs
   – rural children left behind by their migrant-worker
      parents
   – Ethnic-minority youth
   – Female Internet dropouts
 Certainly, the economic is the key analytic sector, with:
   – young migrant workers
   – students from low-income families
 Yet, all groups he covers possess social definitions that
  distinguish them, and (differentially) locate them in socio-
  political space
The Digital Difference
One aspect of difference that we all must
 appreciate (and which authors
 generally do) is that not everything
 digital means “keitai”.
  –   One example is Qiu’s emphasis on “e-
      conomy” which, he is clear, is not only
      about cell phones.
        online gaming is included
Differences in “Digital”
Difference
While cell phone has been the dominant
 interpretation of “digital” in the literature, as
 well as the papers this week-end, we should
 recognize that there are various
 incarnations;
Most importantly:
   –   the Internet
   –   Webcam/video chat
   –   Role-playing games
   –   Ipod/MP3
   –   Portable game players
Analytic Difference
Although some devices share certain functions


Others demand different assessments based on how the
  devices interact with, in particular,
   – Psychological,
   – Social-psychological,
   – Social


dimensions of human orientation and behavior.
Analytic Difference

Thus, in assessing these papers I would ask that we
  also recognize the following “difference-makers” in
  tendering analysis about “digitization in contemporary
  life”:

   “Digital demands”
   “Digital capabilities”
   “Digital opportunities”
   “Digital influence”
   “Digital response”

And that these 5 aspects may/will likely differ depending
  on the particular device (digital medium) under study
Analytic Difference:
Public versus Private
Another important distinction in certain analyses is the
  use of digital devices in public versus private
   – For instance, engaging in good night pillow talk
     by phone may differ from talking by phone as one
     walks down the street
   – Listening to an MP3 on the train can be socially
     distancing (and interpretable as such); doing the
     same thing in one’s own room ought not be
     viewed the same way
A simple observation is that this is one role (and a
  justification) for ethnography: to establish and
  concretize such differences
Analytic Difference:
Place and Mode of Use
The difference in use suggests that the same
  digital device might be capable of producing
  different social outcomes
    Based on its place of use
    As well as its manner of use


   Differences that we saw outlined in the
    research reported by, among others, Galbraith
    and also Manabe.
Analytic Difference:
Public versus Private
In certain cases, with certain devices, the
  distinction between use in public
  versus private space may not matter
  – As, for instance, when we talk about “co-
    presence”
  – Or when we regard Internet use
       Texting, emailing, web-searching, conducting
        commercial transactions
       I.e. when we emphasize “function”/”use-value”
Digital Devices as
“Difference Markers”
The cultural role of these digital devices
   is not only to adopt a style of life
It demarcates one as belonging to a
   group:
  –   Any group
        Which implies “sociality”
        Demonstrates “popularity”
        Refutes anomic-ness
Borrowing from Goffman I
Remember Erving Goffman? (We ought never
 forget him…)
When Goffman talked about “tie-signs” he meant
 that a gaze could link one passerby with
 another

Applied to digital phones, we can see them
  serving as tie-signs of a different sort:
  – Tying us to unseen others
  – Implying networks beyond direct social surveillance
  – Marking us as “belonging elsewhere”
         Beyond the current space of observation
 Borrowing from Goffman II:
 Marking Difference
“Stigma” is germane, as well.
There is an is/not condition of “stigma” associated
  with digital use
 Is: the condition of carrying and using digital
  devices in public
   – Effect: negates stigma
        The stigma of being an outsider, a loner, an
         outcast
 Not: the condition of not bearing/using digital
  devices in public
   – Effect: activates stigma
        The stigma of being unaffiliated, an outsider,
         uncool
Surveillance and Difference
Numerous authors (e.g. Green 2002; Ling and
 Yttri 2002; Skog 2002) have argued that cell
 phones have altered power geometries
  – Youth can avoid the surveillance of parents
    or others via their new mode of
    communication
  – Certainly in Japan, this is true
      As Ito and Okabe (2003) have argued
      Mobile phones mean “freedom from”
        – in a context where lack of space abounds
        – and the major sites of daily existence
          (home, school, work, urban space) are so
          heavily monitored
 Surveillance and Difference
While this may afford a certain privacy, the fact of
 surveillance and the presence of the cell phone
 IN THE FACE OF surveillance is suggestive:
  – of an open flaunting of privacy
  – An open presentation of “the intimate self”
      As keitai (in particular) is often asserted to
       be an affective device
      It is a representative extension of us
         – in our capacities of and subjectivity as
           being an intimate being

   –   A declaration of social independence from the
       collectivity
Surveillance and Difference

The existence of social observation and the
 awareness of observation, suggests that:
  –   digital technologies are wielded precisely to
      emphasize “difference”
        Thedifferentiation of “my private life” from “this
        public world”
In a word, because there is surveillance,
  public digital display happens
Assessing Digital Difference in
Public
 Although insularity from public engagement
  may be one assessment of digital use in
  public . . .
 nonetheless, digital engagement in an
  alternative social (but private) “space”, is:
   – a social act
   – committed in a specific, locatable, larger
     (common) social space
Intimacy and Surveillance
Absorption or Display?
In Absorption and
  Theatricality (1980)
  Michael Fried
  studied 18th-century
  French painting’s
  representation of
  absorptive states
Media-induced Absorption
He emphasized portraits in which the
 people depicted ignored the beholder
  –   This is signified as total self-absorption; a
      loss of social self-consciousness.

  –   It is akin to the “interiority” McVeigh theorized
      exists with cell phone use (2003)
Intimacy and Media
Fried also argued,
  though, that
  whenever a
  consciousness of
  viewing exists:

   absorption is
    sacrificed
   and theatricality
    results
Surveillance and “Digital
Display”
As for the social world’s encounter with digital
  technology, I would agree with Fried about the
  theatricality.

But I also think we need to look at his claim about
  viewing differently.

He argues that when painters obliterated the point of
  view of the beholder, the 18th century observer:
   – was “neutralized”
   – And the viewer found this neutralization “thrilling”
Surveillance and “Digital
Display”
When it comes to digitality in public, I think that
  neutralization and theatricality are wed.
The observer, though screened off, is:
   – Present, and
   – Complicit


S/he stands in the outer social world in a
  position of voyeur of the digital performers,
  engaged in their public acts of private
  communication.
Surveillance and “Digital
Display”




A state, I admit, I often find myself in . . .
As I witness (spy on?) someone locked in on
  their digital device in public
Concluding About Public
Display
Leaving me to wonder:

   whether there is a communication process going on
    independent of the communication process involving
    digital technology

    –   Beyond the communication between human and
        machine or human and human through the machine .
        ..
    –   Perhaps there is the communication between: human
        on machine (on the one hand) and the public world
        (on the other)
Concluding About Public
Display: Communicating
Difference
Rather than the former (ostensibly) engaged in
 “excluding” the latter during the process of
 their “third party” act of communication

   The former plays to the latter:
    –   Signaling it
    –   Engaging it
    –   Speaking to it (about self and place of self in
        society)

   Communicating difference
Thank You!



Hey Ringo:

Drum Roll, please . . .