Digital Youth

1. Digital Youth Remarks T.J.M. Holden

2. Panel 3: Digital Difference Sunday, June 22nd 13:00 - 14:30 p.m. Thinking through Difference

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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)

14. Typing Divides (DiMaggio and Hargittai [2001]) • Technical means (software, hardware, connectivity quality); • Autonomy of use (location of access, freedom to use the medium for one's preferred activities); • Use patterns (types of uses of the Internet); • Social support networks (availability of others one can turn to for assistance with use, size of networks to encourage use); • Skill (one's ability to use the medium effectively).

15. 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

16. Typing Divides (Norris [2001]) 3 Levels: • the global divide • encompasses differences among industrialized and lesser developed nations; • the social divide • points to inequalities among the population within one nation; and • A democratic divide • refers to the differences among those who do and do not use digital technologies to engage and participate in public life.

17. 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”.

18. Comparative Divides I Much work on digital divides has been comparative -- as we saw in the work of Lin and Jung, yesterday

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Japan’s Secondary Divide

25. 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%

26. Summarizing About Divides In short: • Divides exist • They can be evaluated in numerous ways • They differ both within and across countries • This is 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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”

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. Surveillance and Difference The existence of social observation and the awareness of observation, suggests that: • digital technologies are wielded precisely to emphasize “difference” • The differentiation of “my private life” from “this public world” In a word, because there is surveillance, public digital display happens

45. Assessing Digital Difference in Public • Although insularity frompublic 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

46. Intimacy and Surveillance

47. Absorption or Display? In Absorption and Theatricality (1980) Michael Fried studied 18th-century French painting’s representation of absorptive states

48. 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)

49. Intimacy and Media Fried also argued, though, that whenever a consciousness of viewing exists: • absorption is sacrificed • and theatricality results

50. 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”