Participatory Culture and Engagism

I read with great interest Henry Jenkins' recent report for the MacArthur Foundation titled "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century." I also had the opportunity to chat with him recently about how the ideas in the this report and, of course, his book "Convergence Culture," relate to engagism. I urge you to review the report and read the book! You'll be glad you did.

By way of background, Jenkins is the Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT. In our talk, Jenkins made an interesting distinction between what he terms "participatory culture" (i.e., a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one's creations and some type of informal mentorship) and the concept of engagism. He noted that he considers "engagement" to be more individually focused -- individuals engage emotionally or psychologically in a particular issue or concept -- whereas participatory culture is more about the social and cultural process that occurs when an individual is engaged. Put simply, when people are engaged, then they participate. He suggested while we've always had some level of a participatory culture, it's more ubiquitous and visible now due to the Internet.

To me, this distinction connects well with the idea that there are different levels of engagement. In other words, engagement exists along a spectrum of somewhat passive (i.e., I choose to watch a DVD at the gym to escape the tedium of exercise) to very active (i.e., I choose to sign up for a fan site and write a song about the television show Lost). At the higher levels of engagement comes active creation / participation where people seek entry into the "participatory culture."

The shift toward a participatory culture is so prevelant that even traditional media technologies, like the television, recognize the need to allow for audience engagement. We see this in terms of audience voting on shows like American Idol as well as the fostering of "fandom" that occurs on shows like Lost. In fact, I would argue, every successful gadget out there, whether old media or new, intuitively recognizes the need to adapt in order to respond to people's desire to engage. Otherwise, it will no longer be successful.

Another interesting point came out in our discussion about how people become engaged or why they might choose to be engaged in one thing over another. Frankly, we both agreed that one of the key components is, well, fun. Most people don't want to be deadly serious all the time. For example, the decrease in playfulness and the carnival-like atmosphere that once permeated American politics might help explain why people are apathetic (more on that topic on my Advocacy Tipsheet). Thank goodness for the Daily Show and the Colbert Report...

This led us to a discussion about the characteristics of an engagist culture (or an individual "engagist"). Jenkins outlined a number of useful points, suggesting that the "engagist" would exhibit intellectual curiousity, emotional investment, social connection, personal empowerment and a creative / imaginative streak.

We also talked about both what critics have to say about the direction of popular culture as well as what might be considered the "dark side" of engagism. On that point, we agreed that there continues to be a negative perception about the "tools" of engagism and participation (video games, iPods, computers, the Internet, etc.), although that is shifting. Nevertheless, society's perception of the value of video games (for example) versus what are deemed more acceptable pursuits (after school sports for example) continues to run far behind reality. Many people still reflexively bemoan the fact that when they walk into a coffee shop, no one is talking to each other -- they're all on their laptops or wired into their iPods. Their first impression is that everyone is isolated, without even understanding or considering the fact that the people on their laptops or iPods may be tuned in to people and ideas from around the world.

This led us to a discussion of the idea that there does seem to be a bias in our society toward social as opposed to individual pursuits (with a few exceptions, such as reading -- although even then people feel more virtuous when they join a book club). I take issue with that bias on two points. First, and most basically, sometimes it simply is better to spend time alone playing a video game than playing outside with your friends. For example, what if your friends are drug addicts? Or just not that scintillating? What if they want you to do stupid and dangerous things? Why assume that the interaction with others is always the best choice? Second, and perhaps more important, most people still fundamentally misunderstand the "participatory" (in Jenkins' terms) nature of many video games and similar "engagist" tools. When we enter into a world online, whether it's a video game, a social networking site or even iTunes, we aren't really by ourselves -- we are connected to and interacting with people around the globe. And that hardly sounds isolating.

Nevertheless, Jenkins did point out that the real "dark side" to engagism (or participatory culture) is the fact that not everyone can participate equally. A true and profound gap exists -- call it this generation's version of the digital divide. People participating on social networking sites and the like tend to be of a certain ilk -- and it's not a very diverse crowd. In addition, for those that are participating, there's the question of economic explotation. Jenkins raised the point that Lonelygirl15 hasn't necessarily gotten a "fair share" of the YouTube bonanza (although I would argue that her new-found fame -- including a recent cover on Wired -- might be compensation enough).

All in all, a fascinating conversation. To read more of Professor Jenkins' perspectives (far more erudite than my own musings), check out his blog at http://www.henryjenkins.org/.